This is a MediaSpy Long Read (can we make that at thing, I’m making that a thing):
This is my opinion-piece in response to Baldrick’s previous post. At 1300-ish words, it’s a little long, in my occasionally traditional-style… sorry.
Firstly, I’d like to congratulate those who responded with constructive counter arguments. I also think those who didn’t respond can feel just as pleased by their restraint. We were in dangerous territory, skirting around one of those rabbit-holes ourselves… I’m sure OnAir was hovering nervously over that “Lock” button. Thankfully, it needed be used. Here’s hoping that remains the case.
Secondly, there was a good point raised: Are Journalists taught about bias (inherent or intended), in their training, and so should training be bought back in-house? I can imagine they are taught to think critically and to be objective, but how aware is a generally middle-class reporter, for example, of the things they take for granted? Often in articles regarding overseas travel, I hear the phrase as the Overseas Experience (O.E.) as being a “right of passage.” Do Journo’s really believe this or are they reporting this as a fact from a known-source? Because as much as an O.E. might be common for a middle-income earner in their 20’s, it’s just plainly not an option for those in the same age group living on or below the bread-line. Are they deprived of this inherent right? I didn’t go on an O.E., so does that make me immature or inferior somehow? So it seems, unless of course, this isn’t a right at all. So what is it? Surely it must be an opinion, derived from the reporter’s own experience (that’s the inherent part). Now this phrase isn’t a big deal, some people go on O.E.’s and other’s don’t, who cares, right? But given journalists do use this phrase, isn’t that an indication of inherent bias?
Intended bias is a completely different matter, that’s the rabbit-hole stuff. People in this case pick and choose what they want to take and add to their narrative. It’s a bit like taking different parts of the Bible to make an argument fit what you want to say. The Bible is a very contradictory book, written by many authors… this mirrors humanity – as a collective we’ve got all sorts of ideas and opinions, running counter to some and agreeing with others. And that’s just fine. The fact the Bible mirrors society is a good thing – to me it confirms that humans wrote it. I guess what Baldrick is saying, is that Journo’s could be swayed toward doing this themselves, especially when a large sum of money gets involved. Well, I’d be surprised if many Journalist’s sell-out like this. Scientist’s, who know methodology makes what they do worthwhile, generally don’t, so why should a Journo? If you start putting forward bullshit, people tend to notice the smell pretty quickly. Journalism, like Science, is refutable. And that’s a good thing too.
To summarise the above, it’s really hard to overcome inherent bias, generally because we’re not aware of it. It follows us like a smell but it generally doesn’t cause too much harm. From time to time, Journalists will do this; they’re only human. I fail to see how training in-house would reduce that. If anything, institutional training is better equipped to make Journo’s more aware of their inherent bases, as well as how to avoid intended bias.
When someone intends to mislead, it becomes a problem. Of course, blurring the line today is Journalism merges into Opinion. What I think is really needed is a better way to separate the two. In the days of the newspapers, this was always clearly demarcated. Then, there was a big banner that read “Opinion,” but today these aren’t always so noticeable, and sometimes they’re not even there. This could be more of a problem about lack of Editorial Staff than anything else. The number of Sub-Editors has shrunk dramatically in the past 50 years. You’d be hard-pressed to find a Subbie anywhere nowdays, even genuine Editors are rare as hen’s teeth. So with the reduction of Editorial Staff, is there a greater chance of inherent bias slipping into stories? With less eyes going over copy, there probably is; but that’s something for an academic institution to ponder over… that’s their job. I’m sure plenty have already and if pressed, they’d be happy to tell you about it. I don’t think the media needs to go hunting to find an answer with this one; they just need to make the banners bigger, louder and clearer.
Thirdly, I come to the place of Te Tiriti in Journalism. The Principles of The Treaty of Waitangi were drawn up to help codify what is a very basic agreement between representatives of the Crown and representatives of Iwi. As I understand them, the principles are: Partnership, Protection and Participation. Partnership guarantees equal status amongst all people (as stated clearly in Te Tiriti). Protection ensures the Crown has a duty to treat Maori as they do anyone else in the Commonweath (also clearly stated in Te Tiriti). And Participation encourages us to all share and work together, by engaging and collaborating to improve the lot of all inhabitants of Aotearoa me Te Waipounamu / New Zealand (not so clearly stated in Te Tiriti, but implied by other means). Now, what part of those three principles is detrimental to a news story written by a fund that was voluntarily governed by those three things? If they were compulsory, would it have altered any of those stories? I doubt it would have.
We all know the media has changed a lot in the past 50 years. Gone are the days of trusted local newspapers (morning and evening), a reliable local radio station or a choice of two TV channels to digest the news through. Technology has done what technology does; it finds new ways of doing old things. The media is no exception to this. All fragmentation has allowed for is greater siloing of content (one-theme wonders, if you will), where like-minded people gas about their favourite thing. That’s fine, but I’ve read articles about how societies evolve faster when the sciences and arts intertwine more. Just look at Leo Da Vinci. So is siloing media-content a good idea? Probably not.
I think we need more cross-pollination of news, stories and opinions, not less. Working together generally achieves better results. The old formula of reading the paper in the morning, listening to the radio during the day and watching telly at night is largely dying… which is a shame because you used to get at least two different perspectives on an event that way. That’s what our cuzzies on the West Island have ensured as “plurality of voices.” Not sure if that’s the exact phrasing, but it gets referred to on other threads, as you may be aware. How many other threads do you read? People can still consume widely today through digital means. But do they? Media or Tech companies don’t exactly share that sort of data, so I don’t really know. But I do believe getting people to mix their sources is probably the biggest challenge to good journalism. I’m not sure how it could be achieved today when there is so much choice out there… for everything but local journalism, that is. And that’s where Government funds for local news becomes essential. It isn’t about pushing an agenda, it’s about pushing the news. So do society a favour; don’t just read your newsfeeds, read your local newspaper too.
Two months ago, I could have added “Listen to Today FM” too, but the Money Shufflers won that argument… and that is another discussion entirely. As to what happens to the career of Tova O’Brien, I’m sure there’s no better person better positioned to answer that than herself. And as for her impartiality, you’ll get a more convincing argument, Baldrick, if you can back up your claims… like a Journalist would. Otherwise it’s just opinion. And as the morning host on a news-talkback station, she didn’t have to be impartial. She just needed to get to the bottom of things.