background preloader

7 Principles of Media Objectivity

7 Principles of Media Objectivity
Media manipulation is one of the most unfortunate aspects of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We’ve seen papers blur the distinction between journalism and advocacy, fact-checking failures become fatal, photographers and Palestinians twist reality in mutually beneficial relationships, semantics become politicized and news executives cover up news to protect access. We’ve even seen journalists abuse readers who dared to disagree. None of this is in the public’s interest. News services capable of skewing Mideast coverage are just as capable of botching other areas of coverage. We expect journalists to maintain independence and objectivity.We expect news that is relevant, informative, proportionate, and engaging.We expect transparency. If truth is to prevail, we must be more discerning news consumers, otherwise, we become passive objects of someone else’s agenda. The world is not responding to events in this country, but rather to the description of these events by news organizations.

The need for media objectivity in reporting conflict The media, both print and electronic, can play an important role in defusing tension, reducing and containing conflicts. It can do so by being deeply aware of the fragility of a country's' social fabric, of the efforts being expended at unifying a country's polarized and ethnicised politics and more importantly by objectively reporting conflict incidences as they unfold. However, recent reports appearing in cross sections of mainstream print media in Kenya has cast a pale shadow on the role, neutrality and objectivity of media in reporting conflicts. A good case is when one of the respected dailies in Kenya reported that suspected Pokot raiders from East Baringo attacked a Turkana manyatta in Baragoi, Samburu district driving away 3,000 camels, 100 cattle and 100 donkeys! This kind of "alarmist" reporting provokes pertinent questions. What this entails is that as a watchdog, the media should give credit where it is due and criticism where appropriate. no comments

Newsweek Examines The "Myth" Of Media Objectivity Newsweek: She tried to make a joke of it. At the debate in Cleveland last week, Hillary Clinton brought up a "Saturday Night Live" skit about journalists fawning over Barack Obama at a mock debate. "Maybe we should ask Barack if he's comfortable and needs another pillow," said Clinton. Humor is often a substitute for anger, and if Clinton wasn't all that funny, maybe it is because she is sore at the press for seeming to go easier on her opponent. She has a point, but the truth about the media and the campaign cannot be caricatured simply as the deification of Obama and the hounding of Clinton. The pols and the people invest the press with great power. Certainly, there are editors and publishers who would like to be kingmakers, or just kings. The mainstream media (the "MSM" the bloggers love to rail against) are prejudiced, but not ideologically. Keep reading Read the whole story: Newsweek

The Media - Objectivity Journalists often claim that their own biases and the pressures from advertisers and media owners do not affect their work because of their professional norm of 'objectivity'. Journalistic objectivity has two components. The first is 'depersonalisation' which means that journalists should not overtly express their own views, evaluations, or beliefs. The second is 'balance' which involves presenting the views of representatives of both sides of a controversy without favouring one side.(Entman 1989, p. 30; Nelkin 1987, p. 91) Associated conventions include: authoritative sources, such as politicians must be quoted (in this way the journalist is seen to distance him- or herself from the views reported, by establishing that they are someone else's opinions); 'fact' must be separated from 'opinion', and 'hard news' from 'editorial comment'; and the presentation of information must be structured pyramidically, with the most important bits coming first, at the 'top' of the story. Ben H.

An Argument Why Journalists Should Not Abandon Objectivity In “Losing the News: The Future of the News that Feeds Democracy,” published by Oxford University Press, Alex S. Jones, a 1982 Nieman Fellow and director of the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University, describes in its prologue his purpose and intent in writing about the “genuine crisis” in news. “It is not one of press bias, though that is how most people seem to view it,” he contends. “Rather, it is a crisis of diminishing quantity and quality, of morale and sense of mission, of values and leadership.” In this excerpt from the chapter “Objectivity’s Last Stand,” Jones reminds readers how objectivity assumed its role in the tradition of American journalism, what “authentic journalistic objectivity” looks like when practiced well, and why it matters so much to the future of news reporting. I define journalistic objectivity as a genuine effort to be an honest broker when it comes to news. But what, exactly, was objective journalism?

Media bias Media bias is the bias or perceived bias of journalists and news producers within the mass media in the selection of events and stories that are reported and how they are covered. The term "media bias" implies a pervasive or widespread bias contravening the standards of journalism, rather than the perspective of an individual journalist or article. The direction and degree of media bias in various countries is widely disputed. Practical limitations to media neutrality include the inability of journalists to report all available stories and facts, and the requirement that selected facts be linked into a coherent narrative.[1] Government influence, including overt and covert censorship, biases the media in some countries, for example North Korea and Burma.[2] Market forces that result in a biased presentation include the ownership of the news source, concentration of media ownership, the selection of staff, the preferences of an intended audience, and pressure from advertisers.

Media Bias 101: What Journalists Really Think -- and What the Public Thinks About the Media Decades of Research Showing What Journalists Think, How Journalists Vote, What the Public Thinks About the Media, and What Journalists Say About Media Bias Media Bias 101 summarizes decades of survey research showing how journalists vote, what journalists think, what the public thinks about the media, and what journalists say about media bias. The following links take you to dozens of different surveys, with key findings and illustrative charts. A printer-friendly, fully-formatted 48-page version of the report (updated January 2014) is available in PDF format here (1.8 MB). Part One: What Journalists Think Surveys over the past 30 years have consistently found that journalists — especially those at the highest ranks of their profession — are much more liberal than rest of America. Early Polls of Journalists, 1962-1985 Added January 2014Exhibit 1-1: The Media EliteExhibit 1-2: Major Newspaper Reporters Updated January 2014Exhibit 1-3: The American JournalistExhibit 1-4: U.S.

Objectivity vs. Neutrality: One in the same? | iMedia blogger Objective: “Undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena.” According to several Web definitions, those characteristics make up the term that journalism organizations strive to maintain in the news. But according to Robert McChesney in “The Political Economy of Media,” achieving objectivity is a losing battle. “Journalism cannot actually be neutral or objective,” McChesney states, arguing that decision making about news worthiness and prominence of certain stories over others negates the idea that objectivity can be attainable. Take a small-town paper for instance: How can an editor “objectively” choose between a lead story about the crisis in Haiti and a devastating car wreck involving members of the community? The answer: It would depend. But this brings me to another issue. Like this: Like Loading...

Objectivity: It’s Time to Say Goodbye American journalism has long embraced an impossible standard—objectivity. Beyond being unachievable, it’s undesirable because it rejects biases that are necessary if news is to be useful in a democracy—biases for the common good, for brevity, for making what’s important interesting. Objectivity has also hobbled journalism, substituting accuracy—often the transcription of official quotes—for the more difficult goal of truth. When journalists are losing their jobs by the thousands and major newspapers are closing, it may seem that a discussion of objectivity has the urgency of deck chair arrangements on the Titanic. As a standard to separate news from nonsense and a guide to ethical reporting, objectivity is about as reliable as judging character by the firmness of a handshake. Empiricism’s Benefits Although the best news organizations are already moving in this direction, replacing objectivity with empiricism would represent a paradigm shift, not just a change of terminology. John H.

What is objectivity in journalism? | Essay | Knowledge Hub Objectivity is expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices or interpretations. Objectivity, as defined by the school of media ethics, means standing so far from the community that you see all events and all viewpoints as equally distant and important or unimportant for that matter. It is employed by giving equal weight to all viewpoints—or if not, giving all an interesting twists, within taste. To be fair, any analysis should be evenly balanced. A journalist may not like but must understand the need to report about groups and organizations that have an impact on the community. The sole aim of journalism should be service.

Related: