July 24, 2001
-
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
Comments (3)
What do you think should be the code of journalistic ethics for alternative media?
The first part of any discussion of this type is to look at what is meant by alternative media. You actually provide one definition of what alternative media is comprised of versus mainstream media.
"It is the alternative media's role to critically analyze the mainstream news, cover unreported stories, and advocate for minority viewpoints."
One other aspect of alternative media which all forms of media must adhere to is to stay true to the value of what readers are looking for in content from a publication.
And if any publication is to survive I would hope that truth is also a part of their code of ethics. So in just beginning this discussion I would say that a code of ethics is important for journalists of any publication regardless if it a mainstream media or alternative media source.
What that code of ethics would look like should be a matter for more discussion.
Thanks for the response, Marcus! (DO I call you Marcus?)
I like my line myself.
"It is the alternative media's role to critically analyze the mainstream news, cover unreported stories, and advocate for minority viewpoints."
I also believe that truth should be a part of the code of ethics of any media.
In addition -- and here not all my colleagues agree with me! -- I don't think that calling the Mayor a fascist asshole, for instance, accomplishes anything. We should write to effectively accomplish our purposes -- education and advocacy -- not to indulge our angers or make ourselves proud in our righteousness.
More in the main log. Write On!
I agree with your points and it is unfortunate your colleagues do not understand this important point.
"I don't think that calling the Mayor a fascist asshole, for instance, accomplishes anything."
In fact the question I would ask is whether such name-calling is at all effective in creating a dialogue. Which I would hope is the point of communicating to readers in an form of publishing.
Dialogue is a great form of communication whereby we can each learn from a reasoned point of view. We can hopefully understand our fellow human beings even if we do not agree with them.
This dialogue is one of the great consequences if not purposes of media, especially alternative media. To resort to name-calling does nothing for their argument. It surly doesn't appeal to those readers or colleagues who choose to be informed and rational citizens.
Righteousness is such a great word to use for this discussion. Because the only way to prove righteousness in your cause is to have others see you point of view and hopefully take action. To be right, only in ones mind or in ones circle of influence with people who already believe as you do does nothing to further the cause.
So what is the role of the alternative media? Should they be held to the same ethical guidelines or some other ethical standard? Is reporting news different than just spouting out alternative viewpoints versus alternative information.
Comments are closed.