Truth & objectivity: post modern casualties or victims of PR piracy?

Truth is a tricky concept. Journalism is all about decision making. If we were to give three people the same story – no matter how straight the story we would most likely end up with three different angles. So where do truth and objectivity lie? Or do they exist at all? I believe that of course we can strive towards truth and objectivity but perhaps achieving fairness is more realistic than achieving totally objectivity.

To achieve fairness and strive towards objectivity in our reporting we need to get the whole story. To do this we need to talk to as many people as many people as we can and keeping asking and re-asking questions. We need to take our ‘blinkers’ off and get as many viewpoints as we can.

There is concern that these days Journalists don’t spend the time needed to look at what’s behind a PR release. While a good media release can be a great foundation for a story – we need to verify the facts. Now, more than ever, there is information going straight into news from PR releases without verification of the facts. In fact a study by Mcnamara found that 31% of news stories in a variety of outlets were based wholly or partly on media releases. We must remember that PR companies have the invested interest of getting their stuff on the news and in the papers. As journalists it’s important we don’t blindly trust what they write. We can never cross-check too many facts!

As Tapsell and Varley point out in Journalist Theory in Practice ‘in order to present the while story, journalists must dare to move beyond reactive reporting – and seek deeper truths…enquiry must go past the purely knew-jerk reactive type of reporting, through an analytic phase- and on to a reflective stage.’.

Privacy versus the public interest

Privacy versus the Public interest- this would have to be one of the most debated topics throughout my communications degree. As Tapsell and Varley explain in Journalism Theory in Practice there is ‘the uncertain boundary between the public’s right to information and the individual’s right to privacy’.


The students who presented their seminar in class this week made the important point that ‘what the public is interested in is not always in the public’s interest’. They also highlighted that it’s important to weigh up the good your reporting will serve to the public versus the harm it will to an individual.


This is such a broad topic with endless scope for discussion – for this reason I’m going to look at a specific example in this blog.


In 1997 it was revealed that Senator Bob Woods, a Liberal frontbencher was having an extra-marital affair. It was also revealed that he’d been claiming travelling allowance for being in Canberra on nights that he was with his mistress in Sydney. The Prime Minister at the time, John Howard, was aware of the irregularities in Bob Wood’s expenditure but chose to ignore it.


In February 1997 The Daily Telegraph printed a salacious front page story with images taken of Senator Woods and his wife in tense discussion in the backyard of their home. There was much public debate surrounding whether the photographs should have been published in the newspaper. Some believe the photos, taken from the roof of a car with a long lens camera, were an unethical invasion of privacy. Others, however, ague that a Senator, who was committing adultery, while simultaneously advising the Prime Minister on Family Policy, deserved the negative publicity and that publishing the photos was in the public interest.


Personally I think that what Bob Woods did was morally wrong and my immediate reaction was that he deserved the coverage. However I also recall the words of Belinda Neil, whose husband had an affair last year. When speaking on ABC’s Q&A show she explained how the media should stay out of adultery matters because they don’t know what goes on in people’s private lives and that a marriage is a very personal thing. She believes that it is the husband and wife who know each other best and that the media could never give an accurate portrayal.


I don’t feel that stalking Bob Woods and his wife at their home and plastering it on the front page of the newspaper was morally permissible, but rather a way to sell more papers. I do, however, believe it was in the public interest to expose Bob Woods. As a powerful man who was advising the Government on Family Policy, he should have been holding up at least some moral values. Philosopher David Archard agues that we shouldn’t expect our politicians to be angels, and I can agree with that, but they are serving our country and I feel we have a right to know what kind of people we’re voting for. It was also very much in the public interest to reveal that Bob Woods was misusing his travel allowance- using tax payer’s money- and that John Howard chose to ignore it. Such things should be made public so that society can make up their own mind. I think that perhaps front page coverage and stalker-like photos were too extreme, and invasive.


This case also makes me think about the way fame tends to be associated with a significant loss of privacy. At the same time we must remember that Senator Wood’s wife was not famous, so should she have to out up with stalker-like photos being taken of her and her husband in private discussion in their own backyard? Or does her marriage with a public figure mean she loses her right to privacy too?


Tapsell and Varley highlight the argument journalists have put forward that ‘by entering public life, individuals surrender any claim to person privacy: accordinly, they are ‘fair game’ for enquiring journalists’. I wonder what the term ‘fair game’ implies? While in some cases it seem fair to expose the misbehaviour of public figures, is it really ‘fair game’ to have accompanying salacious photographs?


This discussion could go on forever. What about grieving families? The newspaper will naturally report hit and runs, murders, car crashes and other various accidents. However, it worries me how far reporters are expected to go in order to get quotes off the grieving family.


All in all there are no clear answers. Every story is unique. I suppose journalists must use their common sense and weigh up how valuable the information really is to the public.

We're all a Twitter!

We now live in a society that demands instant gratification. Many of us crave the instantaneous spread of news and expect to be immediately informed about any major issue happening around the world. I know that this is true for me. I feel lost if someone is not updating their Facebook status every few minutes and I know I felt totally out of the loop when I didn’t hear about the recent New Zealand earthquake until around 6 hours after it happened.



As Quinn and Lamble point out in Online News Gathering - newspapers are static. And while we still value them for their in depth analysis of news stories - the news is not updated regularly. This is why breaking news through social media websites and online blogs has really taken off over the last few years. As Quinn and Lamble note “In a world of information overload people want online news that they can consume quickly and easily” . This is where social networking sites such as twitter come into play. Twitter only allows 140 character messages. This means that news updated via twitter is a fast hit of information. Although I have noted that The Newcastle Herald will write a breaking news story on twitter then provide a link to the full story on their news website.


I follow a number of news outlets on my twitter which makes me feel very connected and in tune with what is happening locally, nationally and internationally. Not everyone agrees, however, that twitter is the best medium for breaking news. Michael Arrington at TechCrunch points out that that the accuracy of twitter which allows “anyone with a cell phone instantly update the world with what they see and hear, via the simple and ubiquitous text message” needs to be questioned. Tom at Tom’s Tech Blog uses the example of the terrorist attacks in Mumbai which spread via twitter before mainstream news coverage to illustrate a similar point. He notes that early reports on Twitter said there were explosions or attacks at the wrong hotel. He asks readers to imagine, if they were someone who had family or friends at the hotel that was said to be under siege and how scared out of their mind they would have been over information that was completely false.

This is a valid point and breaking news via social netwoking sites and blogs does raise such issues but this can happen in other mediums too. When an event is actually taking place there is often confusion surrounding it and wrong facts do get transmitted in broadcast and even print journalism as well. Twitter can be seen as a rough draft of history. It’s important , however, not to accept all you see on Twitter as gospel. I am more likely to be more trustworthy of Tweets from credible news outlets, however even then I keep a healthy scepticism and make sure I conduct further research.


I realise we must be cautious of breaking news on such mediums but I also think these mediums are an important factor in our changing medium landscape and are a fairly effective way of keeping citizens informed about breaking news

I also found this interview with the co-founders of Twitter interesting

Globalisation Vs Localisation

Are global media giants threatening our media ecology? New media technologies have undoubtedly changed our media landscape but for better or for worse?


The international economy is now ‘dominated by a few megacorporations, increasingly global in the production, distribution and consumption their goods and services’ (Schiller in Thussu, 2006, p 59). In general media flows now move from the core- the Western word- to the periphery. Some media theorists believe that such patterns have led to the proliferation of Western – and in particular American – cultural products with their associated values of individualism and consumerism.

Globalisation of the media also poses a threat to local languages. UNESCO notes that there is a current trend of biodiversity loss and degradation in terms of language. They predict that up to 3000 languages word wide are endangered. English tops the hierarchy of international languages. It is becoming increasingly accepted that ‘English, preferably American English…is the accepted vehicle of global communication’, rendering other languages irrelevant (Satchidanandan cited in Thussu, 2007, p 163).


In terms of news reporting there are concerns that local news is being overlooked in place of easy standardised global content. This is a real issue as to be able to participate in community life and make political choices, citizens rely heavily on information. It is important that citizens know what is going on in their local area. While I read the Sydney Morning Herald every morning I also read my local paper, The Newcastle Herald, as I believe it is so important to be informed about the current issues in my local community. When I don’t read the local paper I feel really out of the loop. For example at the moment The Newcastle Herald is playing an important role in informing Novacastrians about the future of the Newcastle CBD. I also really value the local ABC radio station which won a Walkley Award for their reporting on the 2007 Newcastle floods. During the floods we had 1233 on all day and night, listening for any important updates. If there were only had centralised production centres it would be a real loss for local communities. We can already see this starting to happen - for example our ‘local’ news from Prime and Southern Cross Ten come from Canberra-based studios.

While all these factors definitely raise alarm bells for me – it is important to look also at the positive effects of am increasingly globalised media. We must remember that mediums such as the internet allow consumers to ‘cherry pick’ information. This allows consumers to browse alternative media sources and to have a healthy scepticism about what is reported in the mass media. It also allows for citizen journalism and the increased freedom of speech. For example Natalie Devlin mentioned in her seminar that an Iraqi girl who goes by the name of Sunshine has a blog about her everyday life in war torn Iraq. This is not something she could have published in her local media but the internet allows her to share her life story with the world. Here is a link to her blog http://livesstrong.blogspot.com/. It can also help give increased awareness to global issues as people are becoming more aware of what is going on at an international level.


Having said this we must also be aware that while we may be more conscious of what is happening at in international level this does not necessarily give us any more analytical tools. There may be a lack of analysis and as my tutor pointed out the globalisation of media not only allows a message to travel around world but it can also allow the an incorrect message to travel around the world.


Another interesting point that was made by my tutor was that perhaps social media has come about as a result of people feeling disconnected from their local communities? I would be interested to look into this more. Here is a great video that delves into the idea of online communities emerging as a way to fulfil a hunger for a sense of community.


If this video is too long for you to watch one of the more interesting points to take away from it is the idea that ‘there’s this cultural inversion going on where we are becoming increasingly individualised yet still have this really strong desire and value for community. We are becoming increasingly independent while longing for stronger relationships. We see increasing commercialization around us and yet we long for authenticity.’ (Wesch, 2008). This video really shows that human craving for a strong community. I believe local media is one factor that helps people feel a sense of connection.

In conclusion I think it’s important to note that there absolutely needs to be a balance between local, national and global media for a well informed public. Each play a vital role and I don’t believe a healthy democratic society can exist with any one of these forms of media absent.