Journalism Ethics: Objectivity

Will there ever be objectivity in journalism? Fox (2010) states that although objectivity and neutrality have long been the classic principle of journalism, there has been a growing realization that all media organizations are naturally biased, and that the notion of objective reporting is a fallacy. Even among mainstream and alternative media, there is an apparent difference in the angles they approach in its news coverage. Of course, this is due to several factors such as ownership and so forth. Fox (2010) mentions that the inexistence of an objective angle is also because reporters must be selective in choosing one angle, while rejecting the rest.

Objectivity in Journalism (source: editorsweblog.org)

Fernandez (2010) argues that the mainstream media is guilty of embracing corporate orientation since most are owned and controlled by business moguls and bureaucrats. Similarly, mainstream media in the local context are owned by political parties and thus, tend to lean towards one angle in news reporting, which is pro-government. Hence, it will only tell one side of the story while ideas that criticize the government will never be published (Sani 2008). Moreover, mainstream media is used as a platform for political groups to spread their propaganda. Ivan (2007) reveals how these professional journalists attempt to write objectively, but fail at the very mentions of absurd statements, merely in serving the government.

According to Bailey et al. (2008), alternative media is seen to be in a negative relationship with the mainstream media. Thus, its liberal orientation results in a more diverse content, signifying the multiplicity in societal voices. It also offers ideologies and representations which vary from those originating from the mainstream media (Bailey et al. 2008). After all, its main purpose is to deepen social awareness and bring context to certain jurisdiction issues not well weaved by the public (Fernandez 2010). In Malaysia, the internet is poorly controlled; this allows everyone to write whatever they want (Sani 2008). Despite many draconian acts – such as Internal Security Act and the Sedition Act – to control freedom of expression, it cannot be used against someone who merely vents his anger online, so long as there is no foul language or seditious claims that come into play. Sani (2008) also states that alternative media such as Malaysia Kini and Malaysian Today presents topics that not many places offer, and often have ten-fold hits during election periods. He further explains that this indicates the public’s desire to hear both sides of a story.

So, no matter how hard these journalists try to be objective and neutral in news reporting, the public are not that clueless. In fact, Fox (2010) suggests that pure objectivity is technically unachievable as most journalists have agendas – although they do not admit it. Hence, instead of denying, they should proclaim their biases and allegiances so as to win back readers’ trust.

References:

Bailey, OG, Cammaaerts, B & Carpentier, N 2008, Understanding alternative media, McGraw Hill, New York.

Fernandez, YP 2010, General comparison of mainstream and alternative media, Suite101, 1 October, viewed 12 November 2010, <http://www.suite101.com/content/general-comparison-of-mainstream-and-alternative-media-a292116>

Fox, K 2010, What’s your bias?, The Scavenger, viewed 12 November 2010,<http://www.thescavenger.net/media-a-technology/whats-your-media-bias-89546.html>

Ivan 2007, ‘Are there no ethics in Malaysian journalism?’, Malaysiakini, 12 December, viewed 12 November 2010, <http://www.malaysiakini.com/letters/75971>

Sani, I 2008, ‘Mainstream media vs. alternative media’, Ibrahim Sani, 14 March, viewed 12 November 2010,<http://ibrahimsani.com/2008/03/mainstream-media-vs-alternative-media/>