Roles and responsibilities

In democracies, the role of the journalist is supposed to be to inform the public debate so that the audience can make educated choices.

The role of politicians is supposed to be to represent those who elected them, and to ensure that the concerns of that electorate are listened to, considered, and, where appropriate, acted upon.

In such a political system, the journalist should act on behalf of the audience to ensure that politicians do their job.

The journalist should be exploring and covering the issues that most concern their readers and listeners.

In doing so they should include a diversity of voices and political opinions in order to offer the richest and most complete coverage possible.

If they achieve that, they are more likely to offer journalism that enhances understanding and encourages dialogue and debate.

The fourth estate (that’s us)

Journalism is sometimes referred to as “the fourth estate”, and is seen by some as being crucial to the functioning of a healthy and fair society. Thomas Jefferson, the main author of the US Declaration of Independence, and the country’s third president, once remarked, “were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without government, I should not hesitate for a moment to prefer the latter”.

Perhaps Jefferson was right in suggesting that journalists are more important to society than politicians. Perhaps, in some societies, the politicians know and fear that.

What is clear is that the relationship between journalists and politicians can have a significant impact on the functioning of a fair and just society.

Politicians make decisions and take action on behalf of the public. Journalists scrutinise those decisions and report the implications to the public.

Journalistic types – which are you?

To understand the relationship between the media and politics, it’s important to look at the various dynamics that can exist between a journalist and a politician.

Here are a few that come to mind:

1: The hunter: Tracks politicians down relentlessly. Follows any trail. This journalist never gives up until they have their prey. They are driven and won’t believe the politician, even when the politician is telling the truth. The hunter journalist can often lack perspective and objectivity. Their contribution to enhancing the understanding of the audience is questionable.

2: The activist: Committed to a cause and will fight any politician who is against that cause while supporting any politician who backs the cause. This journalist can be blinkered and one-dimensional. They find it hard to be objective because they realise that offering another perspective may weaken the angle they wish to push. The activist journalist enjoys being seen as the martyr and often risks becoming the story rather than covering the story. The question has to be asked, can an activist be a journalist and can a journalist be an activist – highly unlikely.

3: The buddy: Becomes a close friend to the politician and rarely questions their position, often taking the stance that the politician is right regardless of any evidence to the contrary. This journalist will do the politician a favour, but will have limits – usually when they think they will be found out. However they will always be ready to lend a hand when needed if they feel that their coverage might benefit the politician and themselves. The buddy journalist is easily manipulated.

4: The possession: Owned by the politician through compromise and over-familiarity. They probably lost their journalistic integrity at an early age. Likely to publish anything the politician wants with no questions asked. This journalist is little more than an unpaid member of the politician’s public relations team. They enjoy name-dropping and being seen as connected to the influential.

5: The party member: Does his or her best to hide their allegiance, but can’t help it showing through in their tone, story choice and their ability (or inability) to ask the searching question. The party member journalist will spend a lot of time rubbishing the political opinions of those with whom they disagree. They can be spotted by their enthusiasm for a story that other, less-compromised, journalists fail to see. They will defend that story choice against all logical reasoning.

6: The comfortable: The “I’ll scratch your back, you scratch mine” journalist. Their view is why fight when you can both have a profitable and easy life? Who will know? This journalist sees their job as a 9 to 5 chore that serves only to provide the means to exist. Usually enjoys fine wine and good food. Is available to all parties to woo. The comfortable journalist sees this as being fair, impartial and objective.

7: The constructive journalist: Manipulated by those who fear probing, rigorous and sceptical journalism. Pressured into self-censorship due to senior and peer-group pressure to take a positive view of news. This could lead to the “constructive journalist” becoming little more than a public relations machine having been stripped of their role in scrutinising, questioning, and holding the powerful to account. The constructive journalist allows those with something to hide to keep their secrets and becomes a messenger for those who are setting the ‘constructive’ and ‘positive’ news agendas.

8: The true journalist: Free from party ties, has integrity and can’t be bought, is passionate about informing the public debate, seeks the truth, reports objectively and fairly, and includes multiple perspectives even including those they dislike. Is prepared to investigate all they hold dear. Sees nobody as being beyond reproach and is realistic about human nature. The true journalist seeks the truth.

The post The relationship between journalists and politicians first appeared on Media Helping Media.

Can a journalist also be an activist for a cause without compromising the core editorial values of journalism? I began thinking about this after being invited to contribute a chapter for a handbook for journalists living in exile.

In the email, the reason for inviting me to write a chapter was expressed as follows, “because you are an experienced journalist and a media activist.”

If journalism is meant to be objective, impartial and fair, then surely a journalist can’t be an activist?

But what if that journalist campaigns for freedom of expression, can that be achieved without compromising the editorial ethics listed above?

The following is an edited extract of a chapter I wrote for the book Becoming a journalist in exile.

Journalism, news and activism

I was honoured when I was invited to write the opening chapter for a book designed to be a guide for journalists in exile who are currently experiencing freedom of expression issues. I have never met the person who invited me to contribute; our only contact has been over the internet.

Our lives couldn’t be more different. He is working, unpaid, as a reporter, editor and publisher in a network of refugee camps, and I have a comfortable lifestyle in England thanks to a long career in journalism.

When I first read the email asking me to write the introduction chapter “because you are an experienced journalist and media activist,” it made me think.

If length of service equals experience, then I guess I qualify as an experienced journalist. I started as a reporter at my home town newspaper in the 70s, moved to radio, became a TV correspondent, and then a political editor before moving to online journalism to be the managing editor of both BBC News Online and CNN.com Europe, Middle East, and Africa.

I have worked as a journalist and manager in print, broadcast and online, but, as far as certificates go, my walls are bare. I passed a few basic exams for shorthand, typing and the essential law for journalists more than 30 years ago, but that’s it.

I have never thought of myself as a media activist. In fact I have always thought of activism as being incompatible with true journalism and I have always considered an activist to be someone who pushes a cause without aiming to reflect an alternative view point. If that is the case, and if an activist makes no attempt to remain objective and impartial, how can they also be a journalist?

Journalists must always aim to be removed from the issues they are covering. They must avoid becoming emotionally and politically involved, because once they do they are likely to lose their objectivity. So from my Western perspective I have never considered myself to be a media activist, but I think I understand what the person who contacted me is referring to.

For the last eight years I have been working with journalists in transition and post-conflict countries, and countries where freedom of expression is under threat. In all cases, I have been trying to help them establish strong, independent, high-quality media organisations. In those conditions, I can see the term activism being used in a different way by those who don’t enjoy the levels of freedom of expression that I enjoy in the West.

Perhaps the phrase media activist reflects the realities of what journalists in the majority world face day to day.

I come from a society where journalists are taken out and wined and dined by the powerful and influential, whereas many journalists in the majority world are simply taken out with bullets and bombs.

In that atmosphere it is understandable to come across journalists who view themselves as activists.

However, if a journalist’s role is to seek out truth, reflect the voices and opinions of those who don’t usually have a say, and to represent the whole audience regardless of race, religion, political affiliation and social status, then perhaps a journalist is, essentially, an activist for freedom of expression.

One dictionary definition of journalism is ‘the profession of writing for newspapers, magazines, radio, TV and online’. However, I would argue that journalism, without clearly-defined journalistic ethics, can easily deteriorate into public relations (PR) and marketing.

Journalism has to be accurate. It is all about clear, irrefutable facts that are tested and well set out. Journalism also needs to be well-sourced. All evidence must be checked and verified. All elements of the story need to be thoroughly tested to ensure that they are not misleading and that they don’t magnify one side at the expense of another.

We should use clear, precise wording to tell the story and avoid comment and opinion that could add confusion. We need to be open about what we know, what we think we know and what we don’t know.

Journalism needs to be impartial, objective, balanced and fair. We need to be fair and open-minded and reflect all significant opinions as we explore a wide range of disparate views.

If we decide not to use some views, we need to be clear why. We need to ask ourselves why we are omitting some information or views and including others.

What impact does that have on the piece? Does it help clarify issues, or does it confuse? If it confuses, what could be the consequences of that confusion and who is likely to gain?

We need to be honest with ourselves about our motives and reasons for covering a story. We need to ask searching questions. We need to talk to all sides, particularly those who hold public office. And, in doing so, we need to provide the basis for a healthy and robust public debate. All journalists will have their own political points of view, but these must never creep into our journalism and they must not have any bearing on the choice of stories we cover or the way we cover them.

Perhaps this is where the real meaning of the word activism becomes relevant. When all these conditions have been met, a journalist will have served as an activist for freedom of expression. If so, count me in. Not only do I qualify by definition, but I am proud to be a member of that global fellowship.

However, as far as using journalism to fight for a particular cause, that is a difficult one. In those cases the journalist probably needs to accept that they have crossed a line in the same way that a journalist who moves into public relations (PR) does. Once crossed they are using their skills for a different purpose. They are no longer aiming to reflect all significant strands of opinion but, rather, they have chosen to focus on one and make that their editorial priority.

The post Are journalism and activism compatible? first appeared on Media Helping Media.