 |
| The Bible for all Canadian journalists |
Where did all this blatant cynicism and distrust come from?
We have nowhere to look other than to our media and politicians of today.
The relationship among media, politicians and the public has been studied a lot, especially a close look at how the media’s portrayal of politics affects people’s (cynical) attitudes. Scholars know little about the antecedent of this assumed spiral of cynicism.
How cynical are politicians and journalists about each other and about politics, you might well ask?
A recent Dutch survey showed that politicians are particularly cynical about media and journalists, especially when they feel media are out to set the political agenda. Journalists were found to be equally cynical about politicians as the latter are about themselves, but it is a relative cynicism since it is lower than that of the general public. Journalists are, however, convinced that most politicians are driven by what we call “media salacity,” a drive to get journalists’ attention and coverage, a conviction shared, surprisingly, by the politicians themselves.
There is nothing new in the aforementioned. Governments and powerful individuals have used information as a weapon for millennia, to boost their support and quash dissidence. As an editor going back 60 years I have been offered bribes, threatened with law suits and various other appeals from private citizens attempting to influence my news judgement -- all to no avail. Some people have a strange (ignorant) concept of how news is gathered and facilitated.
Simply stated, the "fake news" bugaboo is destroying confidence in the mind of the public.
False/fake news was not a term many people used 18 months ago, but it is now seen as one of the greatest threats to democracy, free debate and the Western order. As well as being a favorite term of Donald Trump, it was also named 2017's word of the year, raising tensions between nations, and may lead to regulation of social media.
Simply stated, the "fake news" bugaboo is destroying confidence in the mind of the public.
But as I see it, the most urgent problem is therefore not fake news itself, but the way society deals with it. The solution to these challenges is not technical, as many people think.
I believe the solution has to be cultural and social. The concept of fake news is largely shaped by the value our society gives it. We use it as an excuse, a weapon or as an enemy, without really understanding what fake news is and what it does. All the technical and political solutions that we devise are therefore ineffective and we’re fighting something we have yet to clearly define.
It is crucial to keep contesting the concept of fake news, and not just fake news itself. It’s time to focus more on the debate of what fake news actually is about and what it means to us as a society.
I have written on this subject before, but I need to get something off my chest once and for all because fake news is totally foreign to me. In fact, I have difficulty believing that it actually does exist in the proportions currently imagined.
Off the top, there is no denying that there are some journalists, or should I say "opinion writers", who do have agendas and they are labelled by their publications for what they are, or at least they should be. But that is a stereotype and not to be confused with hard and fast news reporting of events of the day and reasoned editorial page positions.
Media outlets exist to report what is happening, even if it goes against what individual reporters and editors stand for. It is also very possible that a reporter can actually be in disagreement, but much like a football quarterback who has to run a play drawn up by a coach, dutifully writes the story regardless of personal beliefs.
News does not have a side. It has facts that can be measured, verified and vetted through multiple sources.
Should journalists generally do better? Absolutely. A lot of criticism is warranted, but there is also something to be said for consumers not being so eager for what they want to hear at the risk of missing what is really going on in the world.
In an age where anyone with a laptop and internet connection can publish anything they want and call it news, it is paramount that we all hold everything we read to a certain measure of expectation.
If it isn't sourced, if there are no quotes from multiple people connected to the situation, if there are no links to the sources cited in the article, it is probably bogus.
There are hundreds of codes of conduct, charters and statements made by media and professional groups outlining the principles, values and obligations of the craft of journalism.
Most focus on five common themes:
1. Truth and Accuracy
Journalists cannot always guarantee ‘truth’, but getting the facts right is the cardinal principle of journalism. We should always strive for accuracy, give all the relevant facts we have and ensure that they have been checked. When we cannot corroborate information we should say so.
2. Independence
Journalists must be independent voices; we should not act, formally or informally, on behalf of special interests whether political, corporate or cultural. We should declare to our editors – or the audience – any of our political affiliations, financial arrangements or other personal information that might constitute a conflict of interest.
Journalists must be independent voices; we should not act, formally or informally, on behalf of special interests whether political, corporate or cultural. We should declare to our editors – or the audience – any of our political affiliations, financial arrangements or other personal information that might constitute a conflict of interest.
3. Fairness and Impartiality
Most stories have at least two sides. While there is no obligation to present every side in every piece, stories should be balanced and add context. Objectivity is not always possible, and may not always be desirable (in the face for example of brutality or inhumanity), but impartial reporting builds trust and confidence.
Most stories have at least two sides. While there is no obligation to present every side in every piece, stories should be balanced and add context. Objectivity is not always possible, and may not always be desirable (in the face for example of brutality or inhumanity), but impartial reporting builds trust and confidence.
4. Humanity
Journalists should do no harm. What we publish or broadcast may be hurtful, but we should be aware of the impact of our words and images on the lives of others.
Journalists should do no harm. What we publish or broadcast may be hurtful, but we should be aware of the impact of our words and images on the lives of others.
5. Accountability
A sure sign of professionalism and responsible journalism is the ability to hold ourselves accountable. When we commit errors we must correct them and our expressions of regret must be sincere not cynical. We listen to the concerns of our audience. We may not change what readers write or say but we will always provide remedies when we are unfair.
A sure sign of professionalism and responsible journalism is the ability to hold ourselves accountable. When we commit errors we must correct them and our expressions of regret must be sincere not cynical. We listen to the concerns of our audience. We may not change what readers write or say but we will always provide remedies when we are unfair.
No comments:
Post a Comment