This assignment is for Nana, Melda, Nina, Rita, Miko and Anastasia. Choose at least one of the questions below to answer. Feel free to answer more than one. Write freely. Use your own life experience to help illustrate your answer if you choose.
Your comments will not be graded, but give me a chance to see how you think and put your thoughts into words. Don't worry about your English; I know for most it is not your first language. The most important thing is your thoughts.
1. What did Beata mean when she said, "Your ignorance as a journalist only helps the government?" Do you examples of this in your country?
2. Beata said that journalists don't want to be equal partners with politicians. What does this mean to you? Why shouldn't journalists be equal partners with politicians? Or should they?
3. Beata said that press releases have a perfect logic. What does this mean? How can journalists best use press releases? What are some of the practices of using press releases by journalists in your country or city or newspaper?
4. Beata said that a healthy skepticism is important. What does this mean exactly? Do you think journalists you know have a healthy skepticism? Do you? Why would you need this to be successful?
5. Describe the relationships you have with your sources (if you are a journalist). How often do you see them? In what circumstances? Are you friends? Do you share personal information?
6. Beata said that when journalists write stories they have to do a lot more work and gather a lot more information than they will put into their stories. Do you do this (if you are a journalist?) Why would this be a practice for a good journalist? How do you know when you do have enough information for a story?
Write your comments. The deadline is Tuesday at 17:30.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNina Terol-Zialcita (Philippines)
ReplyDeletePART 1 of 3
In my country, I wear four hats--that of a political communicator and member of a Philippine senator's staff, that of a lifestyle journalist, that of a frequent "volunteer publicist" for non-profits and social enterprise, and that of a blogger. While my blogging themes tend to overlap, I ensure that my work as a Senate staffer, as a journalist, and as a volunteer publicist do not. In light of this context, I choose to answer Question # 2, in relation to journalists and politicians.
Based on what I have experienced and seen so far, journalists and politicians have perpetuated (whether consciously or subconsciously) this long-standing love-hate relationship. They are wary of each other because they are well too aware of the corrupt practices of the other, yet they know that the other is critical to the work that they do--politicians because the journalists need them to be their sources of information, and journalists because politicians need them to be mouthpieces, gatekeepers, and purveyors of information. Perhaps, journalists distrust politicians more than the other way around because the latter have great power that comes with a clear public mandate and the perks that go with it. I would even venture on to say that there might even be a tinge of jealousy there. Journalists theoretically have as much power as politicians... yet why don't they always get the fame and the perks accorded to public officials? (*Smile*)
Having said that, I do believe that politicans and journalists are and should be on equal footing because they both move in the public sphere and are, in a general sense, all public servants with a very broad scope, a great deal of power, and an even greater deal of responsibility. When we say that journalists' first obligation is to its citizens, the same goes (or should go) for politicians. In the Philippines, the lines tend to become even blurrier as we've had a looooong list of political figures who started out in broadcasting or in, ugh, show business. And, once elected, some government officials are also seen playing the role of TV show hosts in some programs of the government media network. I'm not saying that this is a good practice, but this is the reality in my country.
Nina Terol-Zialcita
ReplyDeletePART 2 of 3
In the same breath, I believe that both professions are equally prone to corruption. There are good, clean politicians (and I'm proud to be working for one!) and there are sleazy politicians for whom wheeling and dealing is the name of the game. There are good, ethical journalists and there are equally sleazy journalists. Both can keep their noses clean while doing a good job if they wanted to, and both can succumb to the temptations of power and greed if they so choose. Both have the capacity to serve the public well, to raise the level of discourse and action and be catalysts for positive societal change. Both can also abuse the public trust and be part of the system that keeps the masses ignorant, dumb, and poor.
Now, when Beata says that "Your ignorance as a journalist only helps the government," I think what she basically means is that a journalist who does not do his or her homework well and does not take care to gather sufficient accurate facts and background information will tend to believe or use anything and everything that government feeds them. This is dangerous especially for countries that have a history of corruption, suppression, human rights violations, and abuse of power.
In my experience as a political communicator, I can safely say that those in government put out all sorts of messages all the time. Every day will see a number of press releases coming out from one office alone, and the higher up you go the more press statements your office will be releasing in any given day. Some of these are carefully crafted, developed, and tested messages written, edited, and proofread many times over by communications experts (thus, Beata's statement that press releases have "perfect logic"). While some of these messages may bear more truth than spin, some of these will be pure spin, propaganda, exaggeration, "fudging the truth", or whatever other term you would like to call them. And when a journalist is ignorant or lazy (and it will be the latter, more often than not), they will tend to take these messages as they are and feed them to the public, thereby perpetuating the cycle of suppression, corruption, and lies for which some governments are very notorious.
Nina Terol-Zialcita (Philippines)
ReplyDeletePART 3 of 3
I'll give another concrete example from the Philippines. In my country, we have yet to enact a Freedom of Information Act. (The recently adjourned Congress set it for last in their agenda, and on the very last day of session before the new administration took over our beloved legislators conveniently took their sweet time and, by the time the FOI was scheduled to be taken up on the agenda, declared it overtime and moved for the session to be closed.) Freedom of information is enshrined in our Constitution, yet we have no enabling laws or policies to give teeth to this fundamental right or to guide government institutions in the proper delivery and archiving of public information. We, the public, do not know how to access public records or documents of supposedly public government contracts. The previous administration gave its officials the cloak of invisibility, "Executive Privilege", and allowed more government transactions and decisions to be shrouded in secrecy.
The question is: should we, citizens and journalists alike, simply take government's "no", shrug, and walk away with nothing? Of course not. Especially in supposedly democratic states, where certain freedoms are fundamental to the proper functioning of society, information is crucial. Information is power. When information is taken away from the people by a corrupt, inept government (or even by a government that is doing a reasonably good job), the people MUST find a way to gather information that is in their right to know, stop being ignorant, and arm themselves with the data needed to make the right decisions. As the fourth estate of society, it then becomes media's responsibility to seek out this information for the public because if media--if journalists--don't do it, who else will?
To go back to an earlier point: I believe that journalists and politicians (or media and government, to be more general) are and should be on the same level. When a society has a government and media that do their jobs well and are transparent to the public, then it has better chances of functioning well and allowing its citizens to self-actualize. However, when journalists and politicians alike become ignorant, lazy, or corrupt, then society and its citizens will be in for very big trouble that will take generations to overcome.
"Your ignorance as a journalist only helps the government," - I believe that this refers to the idea that ill-prepared journalists who have not fully investigated the background to an issue that they are covering are in danger of being manipulated or diverted by politicians who have something to cover up, or certain information that they wish to push on the news agenda.
ReplyDeleteAn example from South Africa could be the early years of Thabo Mbeki's presidency in the late 1990s. Mbeki took a dissident stance towards the aetiological link between HIV and AIDS, and proported that antiretrovirals were a toxic tool used by first world nations to exploit developing nations.
His neo-colonialist rhetoric and psuedo-scientific supporting data was widely publicised by the national media and subsequently taken up as an accepted opinion by the population, who followed the then Minister of Health's recommendation to treat themselves with natrual 'homemade' remedies such as the African potato, often the only alternative since ARVs were not yet widely available. This irresponsible journalism was only counteracted by civil action groups such as the Treatment Action Campaign (TAC), who brought the truth about HIV infection and treatment to the attention of the media, and brought the spotlight back to real scientific information. However, by this time, thousands of South Africans had been infected, and now the country counts for 8% of the global infection rate.
Just like the recent 'debate' around climate change, which we now know is not really a debate at all, the South African media should have done their homework, not given the dissidents as much airtime as they had, and fact checked more thoroughly.
If you agree that the media has a social responsibility to its audience as citizens, the ignorance displayed by the SA press during the late 1990s and early 2000 not only benefited the political agenda, but actually caused harm to the population.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAnswer to question #1
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion journalists are especially required to be highly competent i every topic they are going to cover.
A competent journalist may hep the government to reveal the mistakes they may be even unaware of. But also government sometimes is trying to use the journalists as tool for their personal interests, neglecting social ones.
Unfortunately, this is a common situation in Georgia where government has high pressure on the media. State authorities are using their power over the certain TV stations by insisting the journalists on inviting guest speakers from their party. To be short and more concrete, state officials are even forcing journalists to make black PR to the other parties.
QUESTION 3
ReplyDeleteAproaching the purpose of press releases, someone would understand the meaning of their "perfect logic". Press releases are directed at journalism practitioners in order to announce something having news value (or at leat something considered having news value). Thus it is obvious that they could help a reporter investgate the unknown truth in conection with the oficial stated thesis at the release.
If a journalist does not understimate a press release, he/he can gain great help from it because not only can the release itself be a really helpful source of information but also it can allow her/him to get in contact with other possible sources (other journalists, politicians, businessmen etc). In order to use best the potentials of a press release, a journalist should have done serious research before the release so as be capable of understanding every topic that will be stated at he release and so as to pose smart and to-the-point questions, she/he should pay attention during the release and of course she/he should never miss one -espeially if it is scheduled really early in the morning or really late at night bcause normally these are the releases that provide the public with the most important information. Moreover it is very helpful -if possible- that a journalist arrives at the place where the release is going to be held, earlier than the scheduled beginning time or stay after the ending of it so as to discuss with the aforementioned possible "sources".
Unfortunately in my country, Greece, the practices of using a press release properly are limited because of the journalist's being dependent on political and financial interests.
Anastasia Tsinaslanidou, Greece
I will start writing this with a famous quote that says “Ignorance is bliss”, which I found quite related. In my opinion what Beata really meant was that, if you are really planning on pursuing a career as a journalist, you should not really take in consideration everyone’s opinion. If you start and do so, you are ruining your dream in a way. When someone thinks of being a journalist, he/she should also consider the consequences that will be present continuously. However, a journalist, should be fully devoted to the work that their doing, without looking around. Numerous of people do not have really good intentions when it comes to a successful journalist, which is one of the reasons of not looking what others think. So, according to the question, I think that ignorance only helps the government. In my opinion, ignoring and being focused in the work is the best decision a journalist could make.
ReplyDeleteOne specific example related to my country could be something that happened some months ago. The prime minister invited some journalists in the government in order to make a speech. In this case, journalists refused, they did that because when times before the prime minister did not answer them in so many questions they were looking for, in other words, he was ignoring them. The journalists refused the invitation and they did not want to attend the meeting.
Rita Saraci, Kosovo
4-A healthy skepticism means not to believe in everything we hear, to investigate, to research and diversify sources.
ReplyDeleteI believe that theoretically every person who calls him/herself a journalist has to have a healthy skepticism. But I know that practically journalists face situations where they cannot be as skeptical as they want. For ex. the government may not give enough information to the journalists by saying that it is the secrets information of the state, or there might be pressure on the journalists which obstructs their skepticism.
I think I might be enough skeptical.
I would say journalists are always "disturbing" for people who are getting investigated by them and "guilty" in the eyes of society if anything wrong happens. People like politicians or CEO's frequently try to get rid of journalists and the society is quite ready to blame them. In order to be a real journalist who mediates successfully between the parts, they need to be skeptical.
Melda TURKKANLAR, Turkey