If you really think that there is objective journalism and is widely used in the media, I recommend you a quick quote from the guru of radical journalism, Hunter S. Thompson, who in his great work, Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72 writes the following words: "And that would be of objective journalism. Do not even try to look for it here, and certainly not in any of my sentences or text of anyone who comes to mind . With the exception of sports results tables, results and race summaries fluctuations exchange, such a thing as objective journalism does not exist. The same expression is pompous contradiction in terms. "
This can not be expressed except nicer, objective journalism is a contradiction in itself as that provided coverage for something, or to refer to any object is to gain a foothold - even if it is an apparently neutral position. In this sense, even the judge is not objective, as always repezentuje national interest against the interest of the individual. If the law is enacted by politicians because of the party, or even narrower interests, and only in this mode in Poland adopts the law, a judge in each case will represent the political interests under the guise of objective justice.
That which is considered a media objectivity is in fact one of the most brutal examples of manipulation, which acts in the name of objectivity to the owner of a media company, shareholders and advertisers, among which very often are the politicians, as these two environments are now from each other in principle nieoderwalne. Media above all operate at the interface between the financial and political interests of all of them trying to reconcile, and therefore any medalny objectivity can put yourself between the cartoons. Works fine here on guard status quo principle of self-censorship and how it sets nicely in the jargon of journalism - the principle of editorial policy.
interaction media and politics in the arena of information on measures psychoktywnych is at this very long tradition! One of the first examples of the great alliance of media and politics was a disinformation campaign about marijuana, which they ran shoulder to shoulder newspaper tycoon, William Randolph Hearst and the Commissioner of the Federal Office for Drugs, Harry J. Anslinger. Here I recommend a short piece of film documentary "Hooked" below.
For the same order, however, we should recall the definition of journalistic objectivity. Writes Robert Entman, a professor lecturing a theory of communication and political science at North Carolina State University: "Journalists' objectivity consists of two components. The first is depersonalization, which means that journalists should not unduly expose their views, opinions or beliefs. The second is the balance, which requires the presentation of the views of representatives of both parties to the dispute without favor of any of them. "
We implore you to view the following journalistic material in the" Special Mission "about the trafficking of cannabis seeds and cultivation of hemp in Poland, which was carried out by TVP at the end of 2007 to capture the elements of objectivity in terms of the above the above definition.
you managed it?
me, for example, does not: =)
As for me, this is a perfect example of it is widely subjective journalism, from which there is no escape, since relativism is the only really a form of expression. So do not expect it from the reports on the afterburners and marijuana-made by Polish television and radio stations. What you should expect a confrontation of views, represented by the representatives of both parties. The only possibility to achieve this in the media is a discussion in the studio, and for that only live. Another option is to present his overview of the subjective version of reality by New Media.
Internet as opposed to the old media (radio, newspapers, television) is medium flexible and vulnerable to a dialogue in which no time limit your statements or do not advance infuses them into the frame format. One of the most prominent researchers and counter-cultural media visionary, Mark Pesce, distinguishes two basic types of information distribution: the distribution of top-down and hiperdystrybucję. The first type used by television, radio and newspapers, from the second internet. Distribution of top-down, a unilateral transfer hierachiczne crafted details, and hiperdystrybucja This information is thrown into space, subjected samplingowi, reimaginings, verification, styling, and the entire stream of provocative narrative, oscillating around its transmission. A typical example is hiperdystrybucji YouTube'owe discourses, consisting the video dialogues, uploads to the site, around which creates a temporary culture of interpretation - doskonaym this Example are wykwitające recently on YouTube vlogi on afterburners.
If TV does not want to give you air time, no energy trwońcie impotent rage, but it Create your own. In this way the seeds are done making changes!
Exercise:
first) Look at a few brief television njusów about marijuana, afterburners, or other drugs.
second) Is there a fair distribution of them is always time for representatives of both parties? Try to count it in seconds.
3rd) Are journalist resigns from pursuing material appearing in the background as the voice of the narrator, to pursue the noble ideas obektywizmu?
4) At the end of the material also notice who it summarizes and how? Is this summary nazwallibyście journalistic objectivity?
0 comments:
Post a Comment