Filed under: J840 Week 4, Society + Media | Tags: Advocacy, citizen journalist, journalism bias, objective journalism, scientific method in journalism, trojan horse
Is there such a thing as objective journalism anymore when a story involves more than a few individuals?
I could report on what the climate bill contains, for example. I can write about what the environmental activists say, and I can write about what the oil and gas industries think of that. I would have presented a story objectively. I can sleep peacefully at night, knowing I have acted with integrity. But have I? Do I really know all there is to know about the “facts” given to me by the activist or by the industry? How much of their opinions did I reproduce? At what point did my own subjective biases creep in? And how much of those biases have I explicitly mentioned in the story?
While an admirable goal, objective journalism is hard, requires extensive investigation over long periods, and the conclusions that consumers draw from a story can very likely be ones that the corporation paying the journalist does not like. Or worse, it may bring down ratings. To add to the difficulty, the journalist’s own opinions seep through, even if they’re not acknowledged.
Not exactly the kind of reporting that can be easily sustained in today’s 24 hour, real-time media frenzy.
With the advent of the “citizen journalist“, who has a vested interest in expressing his or her own opinion, there is an even lesser impetus to maintain objectivity in journalism.
So what we get is pseudo-objectivity. A trojan horse.
Advocacy journalism has a real place in today’s world. When it’s used for something good, it leads to a greater awareness of issues that don’t get the attention they deserve – environmental damage, homelessness, poverty, discrimination, a broken education system, abuse of power, health care mismanagement, etc. When it’s bad, you get Bill O’Reilly and Keith Olbermann.
For true objectivity in journalism, it is important for a journalist to be aware of his or her biases and follow a scientific method that will eliminate them in the reporting. It is also important to declare those biases so the reader can make the final decision.
Victor V
Filed under: J840 Week 4, Society + Media | Tags: 9/11, Advocacy, journalism, journalistic ethics, objectivity, reporting, September 11, social media
On September 11th, 2001 the world turned silent at 8:45am (EDT). Televisions and computers filled rooms with glowing light and reporter’s voices became the only sounds as millions began to follow the terrifying coverage.
I, along with countless others, remember exactly what I was doing at this moment. I stared at the tv, unable to think about anything other than wanting to know more. Classmates turned on computers, reading out the headlines as the words terrorism, conspiracy, attack and death screamed out.
Journalists, by training, are supposed to remain objective when it comes to media coverage. This simple ideal becomes comprised when journalists are required to report on something that strikes an emotional resonance with them. On September 11th journalists professional integrity was put to the test, and many reporters naturally became advocates in support of the war against terrorism.
In the weeks following the events, journalists fueled the fire for American Pride by reporting stories centered around terrorism, or scenes of Americans showing Patriotism. The following graph from Journalism.org shows the percentage changes in news coverage following 9/11.
Advocacy Journalism was born from a passionate response to the events taking place. We saw a very pro-American viewpoint, but what was going on outside of America’s borders?
I believe that a journalist can never truly be objective. In a perfect world a journalist would quiet their voice and report both sides of an issue, but sometimes it is for the greater good to omit certain truths. A journalist should advocate their beliefs, but only when the audience is aware it is in the journalist’s personal opinion.
With the country in a state of grieving, some may argue that it violated journalistic ethics to show both sides of the story, and give terrorists a voice. It was easier to advocate for America, and urge people to fight back against a faceless society. However, isn’t that similat to putting a band-aid over a wound without cleaning it? Where is the line that journalists shouldn’t cross when pursuing their beliefs in reporting? Should they always show both sides of the story?
Jenni Brown
Filed under: J840 Week 4, Society + Media | Tags: advocacy journalism, Hurricane Katrina, J840
I am horrified by the images and stories of Katrina – still.
Agony reigns in the aftermath of Katrina. National Georgraphic
My particular horror, the unforgettable deaths of 35 nursing home residents who were helpless, trapped in their home and victims of rising water. My connection? My sister Barbara battled and finally surrendered the use of her legs to a debilitating disease that has changed her physical life. She resides in an assisted living facility. Since Katrina I have a deeper interest and knowledge of Barbara’s facility and their evacuation and contingency plans. I know what will happen should there be an emergency.
New Orleans, then and now. One year later. National Geographic
The myriad stories of Katrina are real for me because of Barbara, because my childhood neighbor was a physician in New Orleans during the crisis and because the stories are those of real people; victors and victims.
Many of the real stories came to me through advocacy journalism. I find the stories touching. I am informed, shocked, committed, changed.
I desire real stories in the media. I want to know of situations that are tragically broken yet ultimately fixable. I want to know about the survivors, those who are forever changed by circumstances.
I also long for objectivity in journalism. I define objectivity as an unbiased accounting of the facts. While it may be easy to get the facts, an unbiased accounting is harder to find. I serve my need for objectivity by searching multiple sources for multiple points of view.
Are there other ways to develop an unbiased accounting of the facts?
-PegC.
Filed under: J840 Week 4, Society + Media | Tags: advocacy journalism, advocacy Journalist, Ellen W. Horowitz, journalism, journalistic ethics, objective journalism, Society of Professional Journalists, Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics, unbiased journalism
Advocacy journalism is not a pure form of journalist because it’s not objective, and objectivity is the one attribute that defines “journalism” from all other writing or speaking styles. There’s a difference between a “writer” and a “journalist.” Writers write because they have something to say, journalists write (or broadcasts) because they have something to share and/or inform with others through media. And although both may be gifted in similar ways, it’s important not get the two arts confused. For example, someone who writes a sport column about game predictions and play-by-play anecdotes is not a “journalist”—that’s a “columnist.”
What do these terms mean anyways?
Terms surrounding journalism, like objectivity and advocacy, are commonly used and people are often desensitized to them. That stated, I thought I should go Mr. Webster to revisits the definitions.
Advocacy journalism: journalism that advocates a cause or expresses a viewpoint
Objectivity: lack of favoritism toward one side or another
Hmmm…it’s difficult to express a viewpoint while lacking favoritism. What I found more interesting is a statement from the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics:
“Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.”
(Seriously, cut and pasted directly from the public document.)
What’s your opinion worth?
I do not deem myself an expert in the philosophical rhymes and reasons of ethical journalism; I’m in PR for goodness sake, but I am thoroughly educated in purposes of writing styles. I write in the PR capacity for clients everyday. After giving PR writing some consideration one could determine it to be advocacy journalism, but I am far from a journalist and I’ll be the first to admit it. However, I do consider myself a writer, take pride in my profession and have a significant respect for all writing styles. For all of those reasons, I hope the world of journalism remains untainted. The public deserves a (per the U.S. Constitution) and depends on genuine journalist to deliver unbiased, relevant information—-not an opinion. All of media will lose credibility when people begin believing all journalism is one-sided and skewed, which devalues all forms of writing/broadcasting—even advocacy journalism.
This original Ellen Horowitz illustration points out her difficulty with advocacy journalism.
Beth Davis
Filed under: J840 Week 4, Society + Media | Tags: advocacy journalism, marketing communications, omission
Is leaving an important fact out of a story the equivalent of lying? I am facing this issue with my part of our group’s project. The person I interviewed for a “success story” piece for the LCS’s newsletter was stabbed in the chest trying to break-up a fight at the shelter. After he recovered, he immediately came back to work at the shelter and is completely dedicated to 
it.
This is a dramatic story that illustrates what the center means to him, but it might give people the impression that the shelter is violent. As the audience for the newsletter is primarily made up of donors and volunteers, I am leaning towards not including this violent aspect of the story (even though I have a great picture of him showing off his scar). Any insight would be much appreciated.
– Ian Nyquist
Filed under: J840 Week 4, Society + Media | Tags: CNN, FOX News, media objectivity, Missing White Woman Syndrome
The phrase “objectivity and advocacy in journalism” immediately makes me think of the 2004 documentary, Outfoxed. Much like Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 documentary that attacked President George W. Bush, Outfoxed was aimed at exposing FOX News Channel for its conservative, right-winged objectives.
On the flip side, news channels such as CNN, MSNBC and CNBC are accused of having left-wing biases, favoring democratic candidates and liberal topics. So which news source are we to believe?
Remember the media coverage of Natalie Holloway, the 19-year-old, blonde college student who disappeared during spring break in Aruba? Or how about JonBenet Ramsey, the six-year-old pageant queen from Boulder, Colorado who went missing one Christmas Eve? Recall the names Caylee Anthony, Elizabeth Smart or Kelsey Smith? I’ll assume your answer is yes to at least one of these names, if not all of them.
Now what about Reyna Gabriella Alvarado-Carrera or Mya Lyons? How many people recognize these names? I’ll admit I had to do a little research myself to remember the names and the significance attached to each person. Alvarado-Carrera was a young, Hispanic woman who disappeared around the same time as Holloway and Lyons was a young, black girl who disappeared around the same time as Anthony, yet neither one of these girls received nearly the amount of media coverage the others did. Even more perplexing is that every news station was guilty of this media biased, not just FOX or just CNBC.
So what’s the objective? Why do journalists cover one story over and over but selectively leave out others? What is the media trying to advocate by covering certain
Cries for journalistic objectivity aren't restricted to American media. This Chinese student is protesting BBC's objectivity breach on the coverage of the Tibet riots in March 2008.
types of stories versus others? My honest answer is, “I don’t know.” I can guess that the media covers stories it thinks its audience wants to know about, but I think it’s the media’s responsibility to keep us informed, not focused. The golden rule of a journalist is to remain objective, not selective. I know it’s easier said than done, but as a consumer of news, I want to hear it all, the good, the bad and the ugly. I’d like to make my own discretions instead of the media deciding for me.
-Erin Pursel
Filed under: J840 Week 4, Society + Media | Tags: Ben Bagdikian, human nature, journalist, mainstream, objective, unbiased
“News, like all human observations, is not truly objective…. Human scenes described by different individuals are seen with differences.”
-Ben Bagdikian, journalist
What does it take to be truly objective? If you agree with Bagdikian, it’s not even possible. After all, for a journalist, even choosing which story you cover could be considered biased.
I think that objective journalism is necessary in order for us to form our own opinions. However, I also believe that it’s nearly impossible to be truly objective. We just can’t help it. It’s human nature. We’re emotional creatures with life experiences that have shaped our views. Just ask two people to write an unbiased story on a topic. It’s unlikely they’ll produce the same product.
Objective reporting is easier said than done.
On the other hand, I also see the need for advocacy in journalism. From a viewer’s perspective, I think it’s great to hear a journalist talk or write on a topic they’re passionate about. When a journalist becomes an advocate, they step away from a spectator role and act as an engaged subject, trying to make the world a better place.
It brings attention to and provides a voice for an issue that might have otherwise gone unnoticed. Advocacy journalism has the potential to inspire ideas, spark change and promote compassion.
I did find an essay on the University of Wisconsin’s School of Journalism Web site, discussing this very topic. I think it does a good job of capturing the delicate balance between advocacy and objectivity.
Clearly, reporting with an agenda has fuzzy boundaries. When is it appropriate? Should it be blended with mainstream news?
~Pauline Horton
Filed under: J840 Week 4, Society + Media | Tags: advocacy journalism, Bill O'Reilly, Carl Bernstein, CNN, FOX News, Joe Biden, objectivity, Sarah Palin, Vice Presidential Debate
Objectivity in journalism assumes that truth is equidistant from two competing viewpoints. Without a vacuum available for journalistic objectivity to operate, the sword of sensationalism wields its sharp edge on truth and skews perceptions of reality. Search for objectivity in today’s news media environment quickly leads to confusion and bewilderment for the casual observer.
Bias from the Left?
Do you remember who won the 2008 Vice-Presidential Debate between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden?
All major pollsters, regardless of alleged or stated political bias, showed Joe Biden won the debate.
Bias from the Right?
Reporting bias on FOX News and CNN are commonplace. Examples include lightening rod environmental problems like climate change where CNN and FOX News differ dramatically in their reporting; or the socially charged issue of government taxation and spending that played out via “tea partys” on April 15th, 2009. Both networks grasp to their own glorified version of objectivity. So who is right? I think they both are right. I just wouldn’t call it journalistic objectivity. Objectivity has been lost; specifically when it comes to politics and social issues.
Advocacy in journalism is replacing objectivity. New and diverse means of communication provide a voice to anyone who wants a journalistic license; I use the term “license” loosely. The voiceless can have a voice; the voice that has gone unchecked now receives balance. Journalists engaging in stories that evoke personal passion shouldn’t be silent observers, but to what extent should transparency, statement of personal bias, and balanced reporting be a part of the discourse? An uninformed casual observer can be easily influenced by the current media landscape.
Jason Merckling
Filed under: Business + Politics, J840 Week 4, Society + Media | Tags: Elían González, infotainment, newsworthiness, objectivity, pundits
I remember the 2000 coverage of Elián González. Tensions between Cuba and the U.S. were at an all-time high. Miami, my hometown, was a boilerplate of emotions. The two points of contention were keeping the boy in the U.S. with relatives or returning him to his father in Cuba. Objectivity couldn’t be more of a challenge in a mix of a politics, family and a community of exiles. The media’s appetite for coverage, from repetitive television reports to endless magazine covers, made this case one as equally appropriate for media textbooks as for immigration law. At the center of it all was a border-less boy who went from an impoverished country to a yard surrounded by cameras and reporters. Do I even have to ask if the media fueled the controversy?
-
- January 2000
-
- May 2000
Video courtesy of www.youtube.com.
The media sets the tone for what the majority of us are aware of and concerned about. For the past week, it’s been Michael Jackson. There’s an adage about what’s left out of a camera shot being as important as what’s in focus. The same applies to reporting. What hasn’t been covered in the wake of what’s been deemed newsworthy? Consider the tenants of newsworthiness — timing, significance, proximity, prominence and human interest — and how they vary from publisher to reporter to reader/viewer. In a culture that’s become so audibly opinionated — blogs, social networks, reality TV — is objectivity even a consideration anymore? There are more pundits than reporters, more infotainment than investigation.
So, while journalists are charged as watchdogs, it’s up to the audience to judge if their sources have more bark than bite.
And, I wonder if, for fifteen-year-old Elián, America is synonymous with the flash of cameras?
-Monica D.-
Filed under: J840 Week 4 | Tags: advocacy journalism, journalism bias, journalism ethics
As much as I hate to admit it, advocacy journalism is everywhere. Articles that appear on the front page of major newspapers like the NYTimes or CNN.com have the potential to be advocacy journalism and waver on the advocacy tightrope definition test. The wonderful world of Wikipedia defines advocacy journalism as, “a genre of journalism that intentionally and transparently adopts a non-objective viewpoint, usually for some social or political reason.” True advocacy journalism shows only one side for the majority of the story but does acknowledge the opposition side too.
Articles from the NYTimes, CNN.com or Foxnews.com follows this definition. The NYTimes offers more left winged stories than right winged but still includes a few right winged stories – but only in a negative sense. Take the NTimes’ home page on Thursday July 9th (click image to view larger image) – “Bomb Attacks in Iraq Kill at least 41”, “Democrats Say C.I.A. Deceived Congress for Years”, “Afghan Truck Blast Kills 16 Children.” The NYTimes’ home page does promote sustainable topics like the “Green Inc.: When Oil Mixes With Dictatorship” article or the “Poorer nations Reject a Target on Emission Cut” article. So yes, the NYTimes does follow part of the advocacy definition but it is not obvious if all newspaper outlets intentionally adopt a non-objective stance.
NY Times July 8, 2009 home page
Besides the topic choices from the chosen newspaper outlets listed above, article contents also gives the majority of one opinion with a hint of the opposition’s opinion. A Foxnews.com story that appeared above the fold on July 9th entitled, “Panetta Testified CIA Misled Congress, Dems Say” is a similar title to the NYTimes’ CIA story but with a different lead. A blatant quote on this article is an obvious hit towards the Democratic side and the source was not named, “”They wanted (Panetta) to throw (the Bush CIA) under the bus,” said a House close source who monitors intelligence matters.”
While the above examples are politically motivated towards advocacy journalism, each topic was chosen for a reason and the titles and content were written intentionally but not for obvious transparent reasons.
Does everyone else think its cut and dry or are their acceptions?
Christine W.
