Laws of relativity in the Newsroom

Objectivity & quality – the age old debate

Words like “objective” and “good journalism” are very relative terms and have no clear cut definitions. These two words are also the topics of age old debates in the newsrooms, amongst journalists, and among their readers as for that matter. As “Everything in life is relative”, for my future posts unless otherwise stated, I’ll go on the ‘objectivity definition’ given by Gill Rennie, saying “One can still have an opinion, and be fair, and show both sides of an argument at the same time.” As for good journalism: I like to think it is critically, well though through writing. Writing that does not only inform, but also analyses and discusses and, if nothing else, influences the way the reader perceives the world and make decisions.

I do not hold a high regard for tabloid papers, but sadly they seem to sell better than the rest; growing in size while major papers close their doors. Like some journalists, I value ‘good’ content and don’t like dumbed down articles: even though a newspaper in my believe should inform the general public, it might as well be a bit educational while at it.

I also see journalism as comprising of two elements: investigation and reporting. And I would even go so far as to say that this applies to about any style of journalism, whether it is a profile piece of other feature or a hard news story. Each of these two subdivisions has a role to play, although I tend favour investigation slightly over reporting. This is because investigation to me is a search of truth – although this is not a label I will put on all investigative work. It seems like the emphasise in the ‘new media’ news world becomes one of mere reporting, telling the public what is happening through live twitter feeds rather than analysing and investigating deeper motives - a part of a journalist’s service to our readers.

*AllStars*