The media is a double-edged sword. On the one hand created by the people for the people, particularly in this nation's political revolution, it is also an outlet for the dissemination of tyrants and profit-seekers. Yet, isn't what the media gives us what it thinks we want? As much as it was conceived to be a public service, what is a public service but something the public wants for itself? Yet, by doing us this service of feeding us the latest news on Tiger and the whereabouts of Paris Hilton's lost chihuahua, is the media actually providing a disservice?
But maybe that's unfair. After all, we can't say that we all want to hear about celebrity news or the watered down versions of the war in Afghanistan. We can't say that none of us are interested in international affairs and that's the reason for which foreign news coverage has decreased by almost half in the past decade. I am certain there are many out there who desire to know about all of the things this world has to offer; equally certain that there are many who do not. Then, who is to blame? Is there any one specific person or entity?
Journalists have a hard job. That job is to report, "objectively", on every situation at hand. What does it mean to be "objective"? That we provide all different viewpoints? That we quote any relevant parties? Is there such a thing as objectivity? Some reporters believe that, no, there is no such thing: once a journalist decide to report on something and not on another thing, then in that moment, that journalist has stopped being objective. After all, what makes one story more worthy of being reported than another? Why is one quotation inserted while another is ignored? How come Person A gets to be interviewed yet not Person B?
And after considering this argument, I would have to say that they are right: there is no objectivity. In fact, the journalistic ideal of objectivity may even be harmful to journalism itself; journalists strive to maintain the appearance of being objective that they subsequently attempt to incorporate as many point as possible, people as necessary, quotations to be credible, etc, that the true story is lost underneath all of the weight of "objectivity". As readers, what are we really being told-- that Haiti needs the money or that the US doesn't believe Haiti deserves the money? What is with this portrayal of Haiti as an entirely corrupt, immature nation that needs outside guidance for providing stability to its people? Especially when the real problem has been rooted in centuries of neglect and sometimes even hindrance by the outside world? And is this story objective? The way it begins is not like a journalistic, "objective" report but rather a fictional, dramatic novel. What is this saying about journalism? What is this saying about objectivity? Is this written in a way that shows distance and removed reporting?
Journalism doesn't have to attain the ideal of objectivity-- in fact, what is an ideal but that which cannot be attained, only striven for? Maybe they should just be honest. Corporate, governmental, external influences/power notwithstanding, the sole responsibility of a journalist is not to be objective, but truthful-- in any and every way that may hurt. The responsibility, first and foremost, of a journalist, is to deliver accurate news and give power to the unheard and oft-ignored, not to serve the powermasters of profit. I must acknowledge that the "truth" to everyone may be biased-- however, we are already in a biased news environment-- pundits from the left and right, Fox News, CNN-- what are these but biased, partisan news figures and outlets? And the matter of truthful reporting is hard, particularly in situations where little information is available to anyone and reporters must dig somewhere for the facts, from which they then have to build a concrete idea or story to inform the people. Being a journalist is HARD. Yet that is the responsibility that comes with it-- full of freedoms and blessings, burdens and hardships. Being a journalist is like being a soldier or a doctor-- they take one for the people. When those who are to protect the meek become pawns of the strong, where are their priorities going and whom are the serving?
Not all journalists have to be like Mika Brzezinski and throw away their news scripts. And not all of us should discredit the importance of those who report on celebrity news-- they shape our culture and define the trends of our times. It must only be recognized that "proper" reporting is a hard one-- not only because telling the truth is hard, but also because knowing what the people want is sometimes even harder still, because that is what drives a lot of the content we see today.
-----
