I'm an avid supporter of Wikipedia, despite the fact that many teachers don't consider it a reliable site for information. So, before beginning this blog post, I decided to check the definition of objectivity in journalism on Wikipedia. My Elements of Journalism book was all the way across the room and getting it to make sure I had the definition right would have required getting off the bed and finding it, so I thought Wikipedia was a safe bet. According to this wonderful website,
"in the context of journalism, objectivity may be understood as synonymous with neutrality." Now, despite my (sometimes) blind trust in this paragon of knowledge, I recognized this for the flawed definition it was. Fortunately for me, I had read my Elements of Journalism book thoroughly and knew that objectivity is not neutrality, and shouldn't have to be.
In the fifth chapter of Elements of Journalism, it talks about a man named William Safire who wrote, not neutrally, but objectively. He was "someone independent, true to a set of ideas rather than a member of a team, someone who put his readers first." (I didn't have this memorized, I actually got up to get the book). I feel this is a much more sophisticated definition of objectivity. In journalism, it's ok to have an opinion. In fact, I'd rather read something by someone who does have an opinion. The important thing is to never allow those opinions to cloud your judgement or interfere with your desire to tell your readers the true facts.
When I become a journalist, I hope to use this definition of objectivity in my work so that my readers or watchers can trust me to tell them the truth. In journalism, I find that it's very important to have ideas or a set of ideals as William Safire did. However, i also believe that, just like him, it's important to remember that this world is full of people who think differently and that representing differing ideas is one of the most important aspects of a journalist's work.
No comments:
Post a Comment