OUR NEXT SHOP TALK: Covering Climate Change
Tuesday October 4th at 1200 UTC
Put this one in your diaries, everyone… ONO Members around the world continue to face the challenge of how to cover climate change in their organization’s reporting. Our next shop talk will provide an opportunity to share views and experiences on this issue.
The discussion will begin with some comments from ONO President, Margo Smit, who recently carried out a comprehensive review of how the topic has been covered by Dutch public broadcasting, following complaints from activist groups that the topic had not received enough attention. You can read her report on the issue HERE
It raises a number of issues which will be relevant to all of us, and so we anticipate a lively and varied discussion involving a range of voices.
Here is the Zoom link for our discussion: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82406015644?pwd=aU84YzVzR1BPSEZWV09EZEJwclJJdz09 Meeting ID: 824 0601 5644 Passcode: 988692
THE OBJECTIVITY WARS
It is an issue that just won’t go away. The debate about the importance of objectivity and/or impartiality in modern journalism is a hot one. It remains central to many editorial codes around the world and is traditionally seen as one of the key elements of the journalistic method when it comes to news reporting, and yet it has never been more challenged.
In the United States in particular, ‘objectivity’ is increasingly questioned, accused of being naïve, unachievable, a construct of white male privilege or an excuse to help journalists avoid making essential judgements about the information they receive or to silence important new voices and perspectives. It is blamed for the rise of false balance and ‘he said/she said’ reporting, where all views are given equal weight regardless of whether they warrant it.
For those of us (and I am one of them, as are many ONO members) who continue to believe objectivity is essential to good news reporting, the current debate is an important and, at times, worrying one.
And so it was that your Executive Director set the alarm for the ungodly hour of 5.30am a few days ago to listen to a 90 minute discussion at the Columbia School of Journalism on “The Objectivity Wars.”
If you’d like to listen in to the session, it’s not too late. It is still available online and can be accessed by clicking the link above (frankly, I wish I had known that when I got up so early to watch it live). It was a fascinating session though. The case in favour of objectivity and its enduring value was put by David Greenberg, professor of history and of journalism and media studies at Rutgers University, and by Andie Tucher, professor of journalism at Columbia Graduate School of Journalism.
David, in particular, provided some excellent historical context. He pointed out that objective journalism has always coexisted with partisan or advocacy journalism, but it was valued as a vital method used by reporters to get as close as possible to the truth. He gave the example of Associated Press’ methodical and trusted coverage of election results, devoid of any partisan agenda, that was important in countering the lies about the 2020 US Election and the claims that Trump had won. Andie added that objectivity as a preferred method emerged in the late 19th century because much of journalism to that point had been terrible, and fake news was as much a problem back then as it is in some quarters now.
The ‘opposition’ to objectivity as a method or an aspirational goal came from Wesley Lowery, the Pulitzer Prize winning journalist who has long argued that objectivity is in fact a means whereby the voices of people of colour are marginalised and ignored; Lewis Raven Wallace, who as a transgender journalist and activist argued that objectivity had been a silencing force on different views, and Masha Gessen, a staff writer at The New Yorker who argued that ‘moral clarity’ was a more important guiding principle for journalists than objectivity.
I recommend you listen to the discussion. Personally, I found nothing that changed my mind about the enduring importance of impartial and/or objective reporting as a method. In fact, it was interesting to note those occasions when critics of objectivity, when making their case, sought to bolster their arguments by stating that certain things were “an objective fact”, thereby (it seems to me) utilising the very method they were so quick to criticise. Having said that, all of the criticisms made of traditional objective journalism seemed to me to have a degree of validity to them – it is all too true that too many newsrooms lack diversity, exclude some perspectives, and use claims to objectivity or impartiality as a way to avoid challenging their own preconceptions and biases. But as David Greenberg said during the debate, identifying flaws in the scientific method doesn’t mean that you throw out the scientific method altogether.
As further proof that this issue is a vital one for modern journalism, The Poynter Institute has just published this fascinating piece which attempts to redefine ways of looking at objectivity.
I would be very interested in the views of members, including anything they may have written on the issue or complaints they have dealt with in this area. I would be happy to include them or link to them in future newsletters.
20 YEARS AS AN OMBUDSMAN
Long-time ONO member and Board member George Claassen has spent an amazing twenty years as an ombudsman.
He is Public Editor/Ombudsman at News24 and Media24 Community Press in Sth Africa, but his work as an ombudsman is just a small part of what has been a distinguished career in journalism.
With a background in science journalism, he was the head of the department of journalism at Pretoria Technikon and Stellenbosch University, and over 20 years ago he developed the first university course in science and technology journalism at an African University. He continue to work in the area of science journalism and has won a number of awards, including the South African Science Communicator of the Year Award and a Media Lifetime Achievement Award.
In this recent column, George reflects on his time as an ombudsman and discusses the challenge of maintaining public trust through accountability and transparency.
Big congratulations from ONO on this milestone. The good news is that George shows no sign of slowing down, and remains a very keen and dedicated public editor and a strong contributor to the Board of ONO.
IGNAZ STAUB, TRUE PATRIOT
As we all know, being an Ombudsman is a thankless task. We rarely receive any official recognition or reward. So sometimes, the unofficial kind is the best kind.
Long serving ONO Board member and Ombudsman at the Tamedia AG group in Switzerland, Ignaz Staub, recently received one of the more unusual unofficial honours we have come across – a large red post box.
Confused? So was I. It makes more sense if I ask Ignaz to explain it in his own words…
“Recently, I was awarded a special honour: One of my regular “customers”, a self-anointed champion-writer of letters to the editor (“over 10,000 letters to the editor published nationally and internationally”) sent me a gleaming red mailbox with a big Swiss cross in front of it because he thought I was a decent patriot (he’s a former colonel in the Swiss army) for helping him to have a correction published in the case of an article describing a former activity of his in the Swiss Secret Service for which he got a lot of nasty feedback.
I thanked him appropriately and he let me know – truth in advertising! – that the mailbox in question was the last remaining piece out of a series of boxes which at one time he had had made for the seven members of the Swiss government (he was probably glad to get rid of the damn thing). Anyway, the mailbox now proudly serves in my office as a depositary for pending cases. Question for ONO: Are ombuds allowed to receive gifts from satisfied “customers”? In the case of journalists, in Switzerland the informal rule applies that you shouldn’t accept more than what you can eat or drink in one evening.”
Speaking personally, I think the ethical problem can be resolved in Ignaz manages to eat the entire mailbox in one sitting. Failing that, the august and ever-wise ONO Board will turn its attention to whether the gift should be retained. Ignaz – your answer will be in the mail.
| ONO CONFERENCE UPDATE:Just a quick note to let you know that the ONO Board is hard at work on plans to hold a conference in LONDON in the first half of next year.The prospects are looking encouraging and we hope to have more to say in our October newsletter, so STAY TUNED… |
OTHER NEWS:
- Covering Elections – In Australia, the public broadcaster (ABC) always conducts reviews of its election coverage to examine areas for improvement and reflection. You can read about the latest one here.
- Media Independence in Turkey – This issue has been closely watched under the Erdogan presidency, and this new in-depth report from Reuters sheds new light on the problem
- The Bulletin from the Ethical Journalism Network is always worth a read and the latest one is no exception, with some great articles on the challenge of reporting war in Ukraine, the development of ethical journalism in Eastern Europe and reporting on migration and hate speech.
AND FINALLY:
It’s always sad to farewell a valued colleague, so ONO was disappointed to hear that Tim Pauwels is moving on to a new senior role and leaving his position as Ombudsman with Belgian broadcaster VRT.
Tim has made a huge contribution to ONO during his time in the role, and we look forward to any news about a replacement for him in this vital role. In the meantime, enjoy his final column as he farewells his most loyal and determined complainants.
