In his blog, “The production of innocence and the reporting
of American politics,” Jay Rosen writes about his frustrations with reporters
who are trying to be “innocent” and “demonstrate even-handedness” in their
articles. They claim that they have no opinions, show no bias, and equally
portray both sides of a story. I believe that there is a lot of pressure in the
reporting industry to do just that, perhaps rightfully so. The purpose of news,
or at least the public perception of news, is to report the “facts,” or
information on what is happening, to the public. That way, the public can
decide for themselves their own opinions on what is taking place. In part,
there is some truth to this notion, for the public cannot form their own
opinions if an opinion has already been presented to them, especially if that
opinion has omitted or distorted some of the facts. However, it is also true
that journalists are people, and they will inherently have opinions and views
of their own. Journalists need to recognize that they stand on a side, like
everyone else, and that they are not above it. In other words, journalists
don’t need to go above and beyond to “advertise their own innocence” by
exaggerating the inclusion of both sides in a story. They do, however, need to
remember that there is a place to report personal opinions: on the opinions
page. (This includes reporting with the rhetorical use of word choice to frame
one position as being held in a higher regard over the other, as David Espo’s
excerpt demonstrates.) Information ideally needs to be reported as fairly as
possible so as not to deny the American public their right to know all sides of
an issue.
OK, but fairness and innocence aren’t quite the same thing. To use the case Rosen writes about, an article that blames one party more than the other for the shutdown clearly should include comments from the more blameworthy party explaining their position. But does balance mean 50-50 balance? If the weight of evidence clearly favors one position, is the reporter obligated to seek out additional balancing evidence? Or should reporters simply go with what they believe the story is?
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment, David. I understand what you are saying about fairness and innocence not being the same thing. In terms of evidence, if it is clearly in favor of one position, the reporter should report what they believe the story is. However, they should also report a view from the other side, even if it is small in comparison. If the evidence clearly favors one side, the balance does not necessarily have to be 50-50, as long the opposing side doesn't get completely ignored.
ReplyDelete