I don't know if anyone except J. Marcus Ross is reading me yet, but I'd like to try to get a discussion topic started. What do you think should be the code of jourrnalistic ethics for alternative media?
"Mainstream" media hold, attempt to hold, or claim to hold -- depending on your view of the mainstream media -- to a code of ethics that include being "balanced" and "objective." Many writers in "alternative" media argue that the mainstream media is neither balanced nor objective, and the alternative media shouldn't even aim to be. It is the alternative media's role to critically analyze the mainstream news, cover unreported stories, and advocate for minority viewpoints.
In Seattle, we have a local news topic that illustrates the complexities of this issue. In evaluating my discussion of this topic, remember that I am a member of SHARE and its sister organization WHEEL. I am, in fact, the President of the Board of Directors of SHARE and a member of the Executive Committee of WHEEL -- although that isn't what it sounds like, because all memebrs of both organizations have an equal voice and equal vote. I am also on the editorial committee of Real Change homeless newspaper.
SHARE, Seattle Housing and Resource Effort, is a group of homeless and formerly homeless men and women who organize self-managed shelters and other survival resources and also advocates for social changes to end homelessness. SHARE's funding comes, in order of proportion, from the City of Seattle, King County, the federal government, and private donations. SHARE is in a financial crisis and has asked the City for extra funds. The City responded by doing an assessment of the program which came up with a number of criticisms and suggested, or in some cases required, drastic changes. The City also said that it could not provide any extra funds this year, although it would help SHARE approach nonprofit funders like United Way.
The City of Seattle took three months to make its Assessment, and released its report to the media at the same time as it sent it to SHARE. The daily news (paper, radio and tv) reported the City's criticisms, with some quotes of response from SHARE. It took SHARE a week to make a detailed response, which it also faxed to the media. Besides factual errors in the assessment, we pointed out that the cost of living for everything in Seattle has been going up, and both SHARE and other agencies have gone to the City for increased funding in previous years, and the City has provided it. The only difference this year is that SHARE is sponsoring Tent City, which city officials oppose.
The daily news did not cover SHARE's response. Alternative talk radio -- KEBX, NPR -- did.
There are four members of SHARE on the Real Change editorial committee. We all abstained from any editorial involvement in Real Change's coverage of the controversy. Regarding the resulting story, one of us felt it was a balanced coverage of both the City's and SHARE's views. Two of us felt that the story was not critical enough of the City's claims, and could have found the same factual errors we did if it had dug further. One of us felt that the role of Real Change should have been to give more room to SHARE's point of view, since the City's was given emphasis in the mainstream media. The director, Tim Harris, felt that to keep Real Change's credibility, the paper must continue to provide equal coverage of both points of view.
This is a summary, just to raise the issues for discussion. I'll post a link to the news stories later.
Write On!
Anitra
Recent Comments