In my media institutions class yesterday, we discussed the Corporation of Public Broadcasting and stations like PBS. The values of such stations are meant to be in the public interest; one of the most difficult values to define is that of balance and impartiality. Though in class we were talking specifically about PBS, the question of necessity of impartiality in print and broadcast journalism came up as well. Is it impossible, in today's very politically divided country, to be "fair and balanced" in presenting the news? I think to some degree, objectivity in the news doesn't exist. No matter how a news story is presented, audiences of different backgrounds and ideologies are going to interpret it differently. Even news that seems cut and dry to one person might have implications for another person.
This is a topic that could be talked about forever, with no clear answer, because the media is constantly changing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
You are exactly right. Two people talk and talk until they think they agree on what impartiality is, if it's good, etc. And then they look at the same news story and disagree completely in the application of the principles they thought they agreed on. That said, I think you aspire to being fair and balanced. But what does that mean for a single story? If you go into a camp in Darfur, you write about rape and murder and starvation. On another day, you write about the worldview, the history and international politics that created a space into which evil flows. Fairness and balance play out over time, in the whole "package" as it were. And sometimes the reporter concludes she has seen enough and speaks in her own voice, as a witness. But if you do too much of that -- in some jobs if you do it at all -- suddenly you are seen as an advocate and your facts are discounted.
Post a Comment