Back in February 22, 2019, an opinion article in the Washington Post by Jeremy Littau talked about the five myths of journalism. One of the myths alluded to is the belief that good journalism must be objective. However, Littau points out that the press in the past was more often than not openly biased. Indeed, he points out that The American Press Institute says the public has developed a flawed conception of news objectivity by confusing it with lack of bias. On the other hand, I have read that some believe that younger journalists tend to be more activist, thereby leading to more overt bias in their coverage of news events. The very terms that they use to describe or portray these events often illustrate such biases. Some have even demonstrated evident biases through their personal social media outlets. This can lead to their dismissal by news outlets as it has on occasion in the U.S.
Nowhere was the nature of journalistic integrity challenged more then during the reporting in both the U.S. and Canada on the recent Palestinian-Israeli conflict. In some cases, choice phrases were borrowed from implicated groups to describe Israel’s attacks on Gaza, such as “indiscriminate airstrikes”. The phrases “ethnic cleansing” and “forced expulsions” emerged to describe what is happening in the occupied Palestinian territories, phrases often employed by some human rights groups. Of course, it didn’t take long to discover that input about the conflict on social media was by far more favourable to the Palestinian cause than to Israeli justification for its military actions. Heartbreaking videos being released and viewed by millions provided clear evidence of the resulting destruction within Gaza. Not only did these appear on social media, but many were selectively used by news outlets to describe the scene, especially those depicting injured women and children. The emotive term “humanitarian disaster”, whether justified or not, was repeatedly used to describe the tragic situation on the ground. Moreover, one would have to do a more in-depth study to assess whether and how many biases did occur among reputable news outlets. How were journalists influenced in their accounts and by whom?
As Andrew MacDougall, a communications consultant, pointed out: “It’s one thing for an opinion journalist to make such an incendiary claim; it’s another for a straight-news reporter to do the same.” Despite what journalism schools may proclaim on the need for objectivity, MacDougall sees younger journalists increasingly identifying themselves as activists as much as they do practitioners of the news craft. Furthermore, this cohort views journalism as a means to an end, a tool to produce the changes it wishes to seek in society. There is little doubt that journalists can be influenced by accounts of events on social media, but by how much is another story? It cannot be easy to maintain objectivity in an era of the me-too generation, Black Lives Matter, indigenous issues, systemic racism against minorities, etc., etc. Activism is most often encouraged on campuses and its influences upon journalism faculties are just as certain to be found on most campuses.
FROLITICKS 
Leave a comment