Journalists and their language…
Consider this quote from The News About the News, by Leonard Downie, Jr. and Robert G. Kaiser:
The way a good newspaper actually gets produced is important evidence in the old argument about the desirability, or even the plausibility, of “objective” journalism. In fact, no human enterprise based on choice and decisions about what is important, what is entertaining, what is wheat and what is chaff can ever be literally objective. Objective means real and tangible, not related to one person’s thoughts or beliefs. But a newspaper is the product of thousands of subjective decisions: we will send a reporter out on a story, but not on that one; the reporter will ask these questions, but not those; we will put these six stories on the front page because they are the most important, or the most fun to read, or the most likely to please readers, and others will run inside the paper, or not at all. “Objective” journalism is an unrealistic goal; “fair” is more plausible. Fairness is a subjective standard, but it seems easier to explain and to satisfy by answering basic questions: Are all sides represented? Would the advocates or disputants recognize the paper’s version of their arguments? Has the paper explained the context?
After rejecting objective idealism, the authors end this paragraph with three important questions. The first demonstrates that there are more than two sides to an issue. Journalism should not treat civic contentions as simplistic dichotomies. Such dichotomies, however, are hard to resist because they create drama. Who will win? Who will lose? Not all civic issues require winners and losers. Not all socio-political situations are zero-sum games.
The second question demonstrates from where so much clamoring about political bias in the news media springs–not recognizing one’s position or ideology in the presentation. You tell a reporter one thing and it winds up in the paper looking like something else. You haven’t been heard or, perhaps, respected. The reasons are many, from overt political bias on the part of the reporter/editor to, more likely, the journalists’ misunderstandings of the proper articulation of (and the reasons for that articulation) of your position. Too many journalists consider themselves language experts just because they write for a living. Sadly, too many of them haven’t a clue about how language works (linguistics), how/why it persuades (rhetoric), or how it is used by discourse communities to create, enhance, and enforce standards of thought (critical theory).
The third question hardly needs an explanatory note from me. Without context there can be no real understanding of an issue.
Objectivity in journalism should be thought of as a process, not a professional ideology. Reporting and editing are processes that can be tuned in ways to achieve certain results. Journalists can tune their practices to discover and deliver context and to give proper attention to the various nuances of a civic issue. Now, how do we tune the process to add critical language awareness and analysis?
UPDATE (10:05 a.m.): Bill Dennis, the Peoria Pundit, says that objectivity is a “mindset” that may or may not be present in a newsroom culture.
Objectivity: Process not ideology
From Dr. Cline: Objectivity in journalism should be thought of as a process, not a professional ideology. Reporting and editing are processes that can be tuned in ways to achieve certain results. Journalists can tune their practices to discover and del…
Objectivity, take 1234820341
Bill, the Peoria Pundit reminds us that objectivity is a process. He links to this post by Andrew Cline, which is also a good read. There are always calls from people who want to ditch objectivity in favor of what…
CARNY
ARE YOU READY FOR SOME FOOTBALL? THE FRONT OFFICE Business and administration “Tom Paine” of Silent Running discusses silly questions on citizenship exams. Northstar…
CARNIVAL OF THE VANITIES #48
ARE YOU READY FOR SOME FOOTBALL?…
CARNIVAL OF THE VANITIES #48
ARE YOU READY FOR SOME FOOTBALL?…
I was hoping you’d use the word “process.” Processes have specific elements, evaluation of which may reveal much about how journalism operates. Have a look at the Deming Workbench (see Figure 1, page 3). I’ll try to get you some more stuff soon …