The United States is different. We know that. We broke off into our own little colony, took time to grow, and then disowned Mother England to take our collective life into our own hands with nothing but some timber and a whole lot of ambition. We expanded, created and enslaved. But we took some time to develop, to flourish, and we at least tried to right our wrongs. We haven’t reached perfection yet, but we’re striving.
This description paints a romantic picture, doesn’t it? Can’t you just picture the Wild West? The booming industrial cities? The apple pie?
Though life obviously doesn’t always resemble this idealistic paradise, we take our principles (or delusions, depending on how you look at it) pretty seriously here. Blame the fact that, historically, we as a single entity are much younger than, well, everyone else. We’re just so darn optimistic, and that fact permeates our lives.
We obsess over health because we want to live as long as possible. We encourage our kids to play sports, ban public smoking and air public service announcements. We encourage our children to stay innocent, so we stress abstinence, rate movies and restrict what can be played on television using parental controls. We have strict age limits on potentially harmful life decisions: 16 to drive, 18 to smoke, 21 to drink.
We are America.
The distinctions that separate us from across the pond can seem as vast and wide as the ocean that’s between.
With the array of differences to be observed, what is a journalism student from the No. 1 J-school, well, ever (yes, I went there) to do? Ask questions.
There are a few hot button topics in the journalism school that spark debate in just about every class, but possibly the most interesting is the idea of objectivity. Is it possible for a human being to be truly objective? How does one measure objectivity? What is objectivity?
What I’m saying is, getting the international perspective on this issue was 100 percent necessary, especially when visiting a political powerhouse (Brussels, home of the European Union) and the Catholic Mecca (Rome).
For any readers that aren’t a part of the almost-daily discussions on objectivity that take place here in Columbia, let’s outline objectivity so the comparison will be in full context.
Here in the good ol’ U.S.of.A., we journalists think of ourselves as a pretty noble lot, exposing the truth, leaving no stone unturned. Our job is to present the facts so the viewer/reader/consumer can make an informed decision based on his or her own ideals, not ours. We aren’t to affiliate with a political party or even any clubs that might imply even the slightest bias toward any person or cause. Not every journalist takes this so seriously, but you’d be surprised at the number who do. One false step can ruin a journalist’s credibility, a.k.a. career. Not kidding.
So these are the ideals of traditional American journalists–people who have no opinions, bias, or vested interest in what they are reporting. Nearly robots.
But there are issues with these ideals, other than the questions presented previously. If reporters are in charge of dealing with possibly hundreds of facts, they have to use their (hopefully) good judgment to decide which facts make it into the story, which is often limited by space and time. Which facts don’t make the cut? Those the journalist deems unworthy. Hence, conflict. And there’s literally no way around this fact, because to present every fact, every facet of a story would be painstaking, not to mention impossible.
But with these noble ideals so engrained into our little journalistic heads, going abroad and hearing them say that oh, this newspaper is geared toward this political view and oh, this one goes the opposite way, and when they cover the same issues, they present very different stories–well, let’s just say it’s initially shocking. You get more used to the idea as you go, but that first admission of bias is rough. Probably the biggest question of objectivity, though, was when our group visited Vatican Radio.
Students took turns grilling the speaker, Sean, a charming, grey-haired, pocket-sized British man who used eccentric hand motions when he spoke. When questioned, he replied that the Vatican Radio’s job was to take what the pope says and the general happenings around the Vatican, and to interpret them for the common man, making them accessible to all. In our group meeting after the visit, many of us brought up that there lacked a critical air that was crucial to watchdog objectivity. Could they even be called journalists for God’s sake? Sorry, that pun/wordplay was too fun to pass up for this Catholic (and that’s called transparency).
However, Nicholas Jain then made a good point. When journalists write for a trade magazine in the United States, we know they have a bias, it’s obvious. But do we respect what they are doing any less? No, they are just making a living in alternative media. Do we question their worth as a journalist? No, someone has to write for whatever organization he or she is a part of or employed by. So what makes Vatican Radio any different?
In the general news media, where the American counterparts are to be neutral and silent, journalists work for a newspaper/TV station/website that they agree with and maintain transparency about their views. At one newspaper, jokes were made about politicians sleeping with reporters, and not just for good publicity.
The separation of life and work just isn’t the same for journalists in Europe as it is for Americans. The audience knows the reporters have natural bias and are expected to find journalists they trust or read a variety of articles to collect facts and (look at that) make an informed decision of their own. Guess we aren't so different in the end, it’s just the means that cause controversy.
The questions surrounding objectivity aren't just an issue at the Missouri School of Journalism, this is a national (and international) topic for discussion and we haven’t seen the last of it. Could there be a lean toward European “objectivity” or will our American ideals prevail? The only way to find out is to watch the media–how journalists present themselves, how stories are conveyed, because the thing about objectivity is that all the rules (those ever-strict, career-breaking rules) are unwritten, subject to the whimsy of both the audience and the industry.
Reporters have to test the boundaries carefully, especially in times of change.
Kelsey Kennedy
Magazine Journalism/Theatre Performance
University of Missouri–Columbia
No comments:
Post a Comment