When does journalism cross the line?
It is believed that “professional” scribes should only
report the news, not comment on the news. It is believed that “professional”
scribes should not let any of their biases color their reporting, to let the
story tell itself, and that the reader/listener draw conclusions based on what
is told. Impartiality is paramount in “professional” journalism.
However, in the debate over “false news” and the rise in
social media, the lines of “professional” journalism have become somewhat
blurred. It seems as if reporting the news isn’t enough anymore; a scribe must
also be an “advocate” in one way or another.
One instance is the covering of the ongoing partial federal
government shutdown. With little or no movement as to a resolution of the
impasse over, what is for the most part, border security, more and more stories as to
the impact of the shutdown on individuals or specific groups are being written
and spoken.
Now, the impact of the shutdown is a news story onto itself,
and the human cost of payless paydays and layoffs with no end of sight should
be chronicled. However, with no balanced reporting as to the reasons behind
the impasse, and the motives of those major players in making the shutdown work
to their benefit, this gives the impression that the reporting of these human
interest stories are in itself being used to force a resolution of the problem
in favor of one side over the other.
Another is the news coverage of the Flint Water Crisis. The
story in itself is warranted, but not much was discussed as to why the Buick
City needed to switch its public water from the City of Detroit’s system, which
is monopolistic in itself and arbitrarily set rates so high that it compelled
the state-appointed Emergency Manager to make the switch.
Also underreported was why an Emergency
Manager was needed for Flint in the first place. The economic downturn was a
factor, sure, but what about local government mismanagement, which stemmed as far back as the Woodrow Stanley mayoral era in the late 1990’s, that put Flint in the
financial crisis that it was in?
Again, not much was mentioned about either of
these factors that helped lead to the Flint Water Crisis in the first place.
Finally, there is a growing trend to insert “help”
information when reporting on issues such as suicide or substance abuse, and we're as guilty of this as any other media outlet.
A
story posted on our
website
from Reuters mentioned this: “’When I pick up a
newspaper and read about another tragedy related to the drug epidemic, I want
to see solutions mentioned in that reporting,’ said lead author John Ayers, a
professor and vice chief of Innovation in the Division of Infectious Disease
& Global Public Health at the University of California, San Diego.”
While that sentiment is well
and good, what this does is put the journalist in the role of an advocate
instead of as an impartial observer. A commentator can be an advocate, but not
a “professional” journalist.
OK, that’s enough “shop talk,”
as Paul Harvey used to say when discussing his business.
Thanks!
