I believe that I was struck so profoundly by this statement because so many are afraid to be this honest, or admit that every writer, journalist or not, has an inherent bias regardless of how objective they think that they are on a specific topic.
This then presents an interesting paradox: it's wonderful that journalists can write honestly and maturely enough that they can acknowledge their own biases, but there is a certain point where people need to obtain neutral information from which they can draw their own conclusions.
"The Elements of Journalism" then presents an idea that seems to be a perfect balance: the concept of independence from faction.
"Independence from faction suggests there is a way to be a journalist without either denying the influence of personal experience or being hostage to it."
What Kovach and Rosenstiel mean by this is that, in their words, "the question is not neutrality, but purpose." I find this to be the most effective way to word this concept because it insinuates that there is a way to write about what you believe in or what you don't believe in without writing for or against it.
I also thought that it emphasizes that opinions don't necessarily denote bias, and what inspires someone to write about an article should not automatically be interpreted as a conflict of interest. In that way, the main goal of a journalist should be to write an informative, cohesive piece, and they should choose whether or not to include their opinions in relation to how it affects the formation of this informative, cohesive piece, not in fear of alienating a certain audience or breaking some journalistic belief that there is only one truth.
I also believe that this recognition of "independence from faction" relates to another point made by Kovach and Rosenstiel earlier in the book. They emphasize the importance of recognizing that there is more to a story than the literal truth, and I felt that this is a concept to which "independence from faction" greatly relates.
3 comments:
I struggled with this part as well, for a while it seemed like in order to be a journalist I would have to let go of all of my passions or hobbies in an effort to be objective. I'm glad they define the journalist's job as the pursuit of truth and not weilding the sword of truth because that's impossible and unrealistic.
You explained this section quite well. It was a very good part of the book and struck a chord with me, too.
That is an interesting point you struck upon. That section confounded me a bit as well.
Post a Comment