Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 17:08:51 -0800 (PST)
From: "AP-AT-yahoo" <palata01-AT-yahoo.com>
Subject: objectivity in the media 


 I agree with you, Salil, that we are almost too
easily inclined to sneer at objectivity in American
media but I quite disagree with your argument that it
is the rule than the exception.  American media may
aim at objectivity, but mostly in the mechanics of it
-- providing of interpretative data, statistics,
background as you say.
 But the writer's slant and commentary is embedded
beyond doubt in the writing. I can provide plenty of
examples on a daily basis here from the print media,
but I dont want to go into list-making.  The
adjectives  you mention that British media use with
abandon are equally present here, the editorialising
is all too evident in the points of view, the
language, the photographs, the quotes, and so on.  
   On another note, the Al Jazeera issue:  the New
York Times too wrote an op-ed supporting Al Jazeera as
an example of "real journalism" and criticising the
NYSE's action as inappropriate foreign policy making
by a stock exchange whose business it is not.
anita 
    

--- Salil Tripathi <salil61-AT-hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear Arnab,
> 
> One thing I learnt working with editors at both
> US-owned and UK-owned 
> publications is the fundamental difference between
> US-style reporting and 
> European-, or British-style reporting. In US-style
> reporting, objectivity is 
> paramount. Now I can visualize some of the cynical
> sneers such a comment 
> tends to get, but let me put it this way: in the
> best American-owned and 
> edited publications, great care is taken to prevent
> conflict of interest, 
> and objectivity is sacrosanct. You let the facts
> speak for themselves; you 
> provide interpretative data, statistics, background.
> But you let the reader 
> decide. Facts, as the adage goes, are sacred;
> opinion is free. And on op-ed 
> pages, you do find vigorous commentaries by writers,
> including writers who 
> oppose the view of the editors (eg William Safire on
> NYT's edit pages). To 
> maintain the credibility, these newspapers try very
> hard not to let 
> reporters write commentaries, or the other way
> round.
> 
> That's not the case with the British media, and with
> many other European 
> publications. The British correspondents (I'm most
> familiar with them) tend 
> to "participate" in the story, by turning partisan.
> Either by supporting 
> "our boys" as in the current war, or by siding with
> the civilians. Many 
> times, British reporters repeat as facts assertions
> made by people without 
> placing caveats like "claims" or "alleges", etc. And
> they express opinions 
> about the people they're writing about. Example:
> they'll say "the 
> warmongering Bush administration...." in a news
> article, something that 
> would be deleted (and probably be a sacking offense)
> in an American 
> newspaper. Robert Fisk, for instance, would find
> place as a commentator in a 
> US newspaper, but not as a reporter.
> 
> I think Arnett has every right to say what he did,
> including providing 
> interpretative comments on the war. But I believe,
> from the perspective of a 
> US publication/editor, he crossed the line when he
> granted that interview to 
> Iraqi TV and expressed personal opinions. Had he
> been with a British 
> broadcaster, it would have been a different story.
> He could have expressed 
> his views -- because he would have been expressing
> them on his own 
> network/publication, too.
> 
> As for NBC/National Geographic: they too are within
> their rights in sacking 
> Arnett. This has nothing to do with
> patriotism/jingoism -- those are the 
> last refuges of scoundrels, after all. But whether
> they should have done so, 
> is a separate matter. Should they have stood up to
> public pressure against 
> Arnett, presuming that there is pressure? I suppose
> they would have found it 
> easier to stand by Arnett, had Arnett been
> criticized for having reported 
> facts. If, for example, Arnett were reporting a
> story about the bombing of a 
> market, and if Pentagon denied it, and Arnett was
> defending the facts he had 
> uncovered, that would have been one thing. But by
> becoming the equivalent of 
> a talk-show pundit, he made a mistake. I'm frankly
> surprised he did this. I 
> have worked on staff of US-owned publications, and
> we had signed contracts 
> which required us to seek editors' permission before
> granting interviews, 
> writing articles, or making public comments. We were
> not allowed to own 
> stock in companies we wrote about; we were not
> allowed to be members of a 
> political party; we were expected to divulge to
> editors of every potential 
> conflict of interest so that someone else could
> replace us as reporters for 
> that story; we were not allowed to accept
> hospitality of companies, 
> universities, governments, NGOs, anybody -- no hotel
> bills, no air fares, 
> etc. I was once invited to speak in Hong Kong at a
> conference, and I lived 
> in Singapore then, and my editors said fine, you can
> go, but we'll pay for 
> it, not the university that's inviting you. I do
> believe that's an excellent 
> system, because it frankly makes you believe that
> you are loyal only to the 
> story you are covering, in the end. In Arnett's
> case, nobody would cast 
> aspersions on his personal integrity. But I can
> imagine other correspondents 
> biting their tongues and pursing their lips --
> because they don't want to 
> appear to be taking sides/interpreting for the
> readers. That's what experts, 
> and European journalists are, for.
> 
> This doesn't mean British journalists have not faced
> problems for expressing 
> their views (but they've usually hung on to their
> jobs -- remember Mark 
> Tully's criticism of BBC's new management, for
> example). Nor does it mean 
> every American journalist is always objective. There
> are of course ways of 
> injecting bias in the copy -- through selecting the
> kind of people you 
> quote, through selecting the statistics you present
> (which source, for 
> example.... a local social science institute versus
> the IMF)..... but in a 
> story in the serious US media, you are expected to
> be objective. Elsewhere, 
> you can be partisan. It is of course particularly
> tough on free-lancers.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Salil
> -----
> 
> 
>
_________________________________________________________________
> Worried what your kids see online? Protect them
> better with MSN 8 
>
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/parental&pgmarket=en-gb&XAPID=186&DI=1059
> 
> 
> 
>      --- from list
> postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com


     --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---