I was watching an interesting discussion between @davelee and @DJBentley on Twitter around transparency in journalism. Daniel Bentley wrote a piece declaring his political and religious credentials in the interests of transparency, so his readers can make a more informed judgement of what he writes and how he writes it.
It’s about trust. I believe objectivity and impartiality are at worst myths and at best out-dated.
By declaring how you have voted or your political leanings, a reader knows from what perspective you’re writing your articles. This will create trust — or even distrust — of your work. The point is that nothing is hidden and the reader is empowered to make a more informed judgement on your writings.
Openly declaring your political leanings can make you more accountable not only to your readership, but yourself. Writing under a supposed cloak of objectivity means you could be passing on political opinions and influencing voters who think you’re impartial. It’s deceitful to write politically natured articles for your audience without declaring your politics.
There’s not the temptation to slip something politically motivated into your work so it influences people, but under the radar. Subversive propaganda is perpetuated by undeclared interests.
The one thing that a journalist should rigidly stick to is remaining partyless. Joining and participating in a political party carries with it the party-political dogma and often blind allegiance. Daniel Bentley puts it brilliantly in his declarations:
I am not, nor do I ever intend to be, a member of any political party. I am a pragmatist. Any party can win my vote based on their manifesto and whether I trust them.
Dave Lee tweeted “It’s that information which can completely demolish your credibility as a journalist.” about the information Daniel had published. I’d argue it’s quite the opposite.
Who’s the more credible journalist? One who is honest with their readers about their political leanings, or one who isn’t?
Great post. I guess to some degree this already happens – for example, if purchasing a newspaper I know that the Mail for the most part is socially authoritarian and economically liberal, while the Guardian is mostly socially liberal, and economically authoritarian. That the Sun is… like a flag flapping in the wind adopting whichever view sells…
When reading these papers I already know their angle – and this greatly helps me when processing their content.
However, Newspapers were (it’s been over 10 years since I studied journalism.. so no idea if this remains the case) mostly read by “educated” types.. able to disseminate information. Television on the other hand is much more immediate, far reaching and powerful. It has the ability to force feed information.
So with that said – I think that broadcast news should at least be factually correct and free of editorial.
[An interesting chap: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilbur_Schramm pioneered a lot of the research around this]
You’re absolutely right — this does already happen to an extent.
Like you say, newspapers and their biases are well documented.
I guess I’m mostly referring to the BBC, I suppose.
With broadcasting I think that the legislation that applies, meaning equal prominence and airtime has to be given to all parties etc at election times, is spot on and wouldn’t like to see that changed.
However, I don’t think there’s harm in broadcast news coming from a direction like newspapers do. It’s just all about honesty.
I’d argue that organisations like Sky News already come from a centre-right perspective and could perhaps be more honest about that.
With Fox News there’s a problem. “Fair and balanced” my arse. That’s outright lying. Nothing wrong with opinionated political news, IMO, as long as its facts are straight.
But to say you’re objective when you’re just a polemical TV foghorn — that’s not on and that’s where the problem lies.
The BBC is often accused of being slightly left leaning, while sky is accused of being slightly right. However, both stay close to fence and for the most part are impartial. I’d argue that Sky news has had to up it’s game due to the BBC.
As a state broadcaster (should we have a state broadcaster is another debate), I’d be very worried if the BBC had political editorial.. You only have to look at Italy to see what can go wrong here!
Very interesting point about Fox – they exist in a market with little regulation… and often little regard to the facts http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/3805691.stm. Some barely consider it to be news – it preaches to its own audience.
Pingback: Transparency, Impartiality, Objectivity « Digital Storytellers
Hello! I’m sorry to speak here – as my comment will be irrelevant, but I couldn’t on Tumblr…
With regard to your post on “Is AV really a step towards proportional representation?”. I just wanted to say that I think it’s more that people think it will make it easier for people in the future to say, “Shall get adopt a PR system?” if AV were implemented. However, if we stick with FPtP, there’s worry that they [No to AVers] will argue that it’s because we are happy with it and that we should stick with it, leaving less openness to holding a referendum or recommending another voting system.
The Yes to AVers who argue this just want a chance to improve the fairness of our voting system, no matter who is voted in for. If the people don’t want a particular party in power, well, they ought not vote for them after all! But if most people want someone you don’t, I guess you just have to suck it up and just hope for the best in the meantime at least.
I most probably said what you already know, but I thought I’d highlight why people link it so greatly to PR. Hope you’ll be voting in the referendum, whichever way you do xx
Sorry if this wasted your time though!
Great post, really enjoyed it. I am writing an essay about truth and transparency in PR and New Media at the moment but. I’m a former journalist and I agree with you that accountability and credibility are important.