When journalism overlaps activism, objectivity goes for a toss
By Deepak Parvatiyar
Following the gruesome murder of journalist Gauri Lankesh in Bengaluru on September 5, 2017 questions are being asked about whether a journalist can also be an activist? This is in the light of reports that the slain journalist, editor of a Kannada language tabloid, was also an activist with definitive political views and pro-ultra left wing leanings.
Apparently there is a very thin line that divides a journalist from an activist and at times that line gets blurred. This raises questions about a journalist's objectivity. As someone asked following Gauri's murder: "Can a journalist hold partisan political views? If so isn't he/she already prejudiced? So what happens to objectivity?"
Obviously objectivity of a journalist or reporter is a very pertinent issue. But my question is whether there is any such thing as objectivity?
As I try to analyse it, I realise that most of the time my understanding of a situation is based on my own subjective knowledge of such a situation. Based on this subjective knowledge, if there are inadequacies, I try to find answers. Vice versa, I try to find answers only when I have questions.
Now the second step: My questions, even as a journalist, are based on subjectivity. Expect morons to ask stupid questions! You cannot expect journalists to do so. This implies that to ask good questions, knowledge and basic intelligence is essential. More important is critical thinking -- how critically one can think of a situation! Obviously good questions just cannot appear out of thin air.
What does this hint at? Obviously the person asking questions has certain degree of awareness and definitely has some biases and prejudices that compel him to ask questions.
So where is objectivity there?
I feel that objectivity is in reproducing the answer. A reporter must faithfully reproduce the answers without any distortion. I think that is what objectivity means.
A prerequisite of objectivity is to remain unbiased in your report, representing the facts 'honestly'. Answers are more like raw data. It is here that a journalist often mixes up.
We have thus far discussed reasons for getting biased. We get biased because of our subjective knowledge of any particular situation/event/person/organisation/geography/history or society.
Each one of us try to analyse the situation as per our capacity. Facing similar situation, a child's question will be different from an adult's; a youngster's question will be different from someone of an older generation. Similarly an uneducated person will have a different question than a learned person.
But one thing is common to all. Their exposure and biases enable them formulate their questions.
Now the third step: Finding the right source to get answers of our questions. Again it depends on our subjectivity. Our subjectivity allows us to find out the credible sources for answers. And this is not an easy task, particularly when in this information age, where digital technology is capable of churning out corrupted information, finding the right source is becoming a challenge. This is a challenge that today's journalists face everyday. But this is just one part of the job. Remember, if journalism is not activism then it is not stenography either. It is not just about assimilation of credible facts from right sources, but also to give them a context. Here again, an individual's biases are inscrutably in play.
Gatekeeping is an important characteristic of journalism. The Gatekeeping theory, "is the nexus between two inarguable facts: events occur everywhere all of the time and the news media cannot cover all of them. And so, when an event occurs, someone has to decide whether and how to pass the information to another person, such as a friend, an official, or even a journalist."
So once more this reinforces the role of subjectivity -- The Gatekeeper must know the visitors!
But as it is happening, often there is a wall between credible sources of information -- in journalistic jargon, those in the corridors of power, and the disseminators of information.
Sometimes one doesn't get satisfactory answers and then becomes opinionated. And here is the catch! Rather than a journalist, (s)he prefers to become an activist -- wants others to see the world the way (s)he looks at it. In the process, (s)he crosses the fine line between journalism and activism! This has been happening with many.
It is still better to report honestly about what you have got after due diligence. One's biases and subjectivity, and even the individual-level gatekeeping process should be at work, only till (s)he gets the final answer. That answer should be honestly reproduced. (Still the second level of gatekeeping at the institutional level can kill the report before reaching the public...but that's another issue and needs separate discussion).
Unless this happens , detached interpretation and analysis could not be possible. As it is, and I have reasons to believe -- and Gauri's gruesome murder is a testimony -- in given situation journalism and activism overlap each other. This is because of a combination of all above mentioned factors but more importantly,because so much cynicism that prevails in today's world.
Apparently there is a very thin line that divides a journalist from an activist and at times that line gets blurred. This raises questions about a journalist's objectivity. As someone asked following Gauri's murder: "Can a journalist hold partisan political views? If so isn't he/she already prejudiced? So what happens to objectivity?"
Obviously objectivity of a journalist or reporter is a very pertinent issue. But my question is whether there is any such thing as objectivity?
As I try to analyse it, I realise that most of the time my understanding of a situation is based on my own subjective knowledge of such a situation. Based on this subjective knowledge, if there are inadequacies, I try to find answers. Vice versa, I try to find answers only when I have questions.
Now the second step: My questions, even as a journalist, are based on subjectivity. Expect morons to ask stupid questions! You cannot expect journalists to do so. This implies that to ask good questions, knowledge and basic intelligence is essential. More important is critical thinking -- how critically one can think of a situation! Obviously good questions just cannot appear out of thin air.
What does this hint at? Obviously the person asking questions has certain degree of awareness and definitely has some biases and prejudices that compel him to ask questions.
So where is objectivity there?
I feel that objectivity is in reproducing the answer. A reporter must faithfully reproduce the answers without any distortion. I think that is what objectivity means.
A prerequisite of objectivity is to remain unbiased in your report, representing the facts 'honestly'. Answers are more like raw data. It is here that a journalist often mixes up.
We have thus far discussed reasons for getting biased. We get biased because of our subjective knowledge of any particular situation/event/person/organisation/geography/history or society.
Each one of us try to analyse the situation as per our capacity. Facing similar situation, a child's question will be different from an adult's; a youngster's question will be different from someone of an older generation. Similarly an uneducated person will have a different question than a learned person.
But one thing is common to all. Their exposure and biases enable them formulate their questions.
Now the third step: Finding the right source to get answers of our questions. Again it depends on our subjectivity. Our subjectivity allows us to find out the credible sources for answers. And this is not an easy task, particularly when in this information age, where digital technology is capable of churning out corrupted information, finding the right source is becoming a challenge. This is a challenge that today's journalists face everyday. But this is just one part of the job. Remember, if journalism is not activism then it is not stenography either. It is not just about assimilation of credible facts from right sources, but also to give them a context. Here again, an individual's biases are inscrutably in play.
Gatekeeping is an important characteristic of journalism. The Gatekeeping theory, "is the nexus between two inarguable facts: events occur everywhere all of the time and the news media cannot cover all of them. And so, when an event occurs, someone has to decide whether and how to pass the information to another person, such as a friend, an official, or even a journalist."
So once more this reinforces the role of subjectivity -- The Gatekeeper must know the visitors!
But as it is happening, often there is a wall between credible sources of information -- in journalistic jargon, those in the corridors of power, and the disseminators of information.
Sometimes one doesn't get satisfactory answers and then becomes opinionated. And here is the catch! Rather than a journalist, (s)he prefers to become an activist -- wants others to see the world the way (s)he looks at it. In the process, (s)he crosses the fine line between journalism and activism! This has been happening with many.
It is still better to report honestly about what you have got after due diligence. One's biases and subjectivity, and even the individual-level gatekeeping process should be at work, only till (s)he gets the final answer. That answer should be honestly reproduced. (Still the second level of gatekeeping at the institutional level can kill the report before reaching the public...but that's another issue and needs separate discussion).
Unless this happens , detached interpretation and analysis could not be possible. As it is, and I have reasons to believe -- and Gauri's gruesome murder is a testimony -- in given situation journalism and activism overlap each other. This is because of a combination of all above mentioned factors but more importantly,because so much cynicism that prevails in today's world.
Comments
Post a Comment