Journalism: Another Primer

The inspiration for this post came from elsewhere this morning, but I thought to reprint it here because for those following Islamic and other conflicts, the idea that "truth is the first casualty of war" has a certain persistence: however, these days, with multiple observers with many viewpoints publishing through many, many channels, our ability to verify and validate reports has never been better; moreover, our ability to explore diverse interpretations of events may be considered nothing short of revolutionary because we're able to simultaneously research and absorb the literature of many cultures as we work with the meaning of the news.

 

By following conflict worldwide and identifying common characteristics and elements across all, the way all humanity looks on warfare may undergo more change than any of the cultures afflicted by warfare.  We're going to see the world's conflicts differently because our perspectives have changed radically.

 

Comments published elsewhere about the most fundamental aspects of journalism:

Whatever the source of news--any major web portal, any small blog, any flyer, any broadsheet--one may expect the following:

 

--Factual data: who, what, when, where, how, and why? Every truthful news statement answers those questions at least minimally.

 

--Verifiable and reliable data: any expression of fact may be accepted at face value, but one may want to check any first assertion or report with a second or third observation or responsible report, and not necessarily from cooperating sources.

 

In that few have the resources or time to investigate a story themselves, we may look instead for corroboration between diverse news sources.

 

If one has doubts about, say, Geo's reporting on a story, one may read about the same from Aljazeera, and then not stop there--head to Reuters and the BCC, and if that's not enough, go to France24 -- http://www.france24.com/en/middle-east/ -- and may all Google on to all elsewhere in the world.

 

Good factual information is first of all questionable: it may be met with skepticism but also pursued, tested, corroborated, and found, when one has read enough or conducted interviews enough and to satisfaction, undeniable.

 

Beyond the factual, argument or pursuasive speech may be of another order.

 

In the west, appeals based on the character of the speaker--and that may include credibility derived from a respected ancestry; to emotion (to fear and suspicion of a target; to the listener's ego through compliment, flattery, and promise); and to fundamentally practical thinking may mark a clever speaker, not necessarily one invested with goodness. For judging that, as listeners or readers, we may be careful to weigh a speaker's words in light of his less articulated or visible ambitions and unspoken motives.

 

Were I to list five dimensions with which to judge the acceptability of commentary and reportage universally, they would be these:

 

1. Accuracy.

 

2. Depth.

 

3. Fairness.

 

4. Humanity.

 

5. Integrity.

 

Comments

[tammy swofford]

Writing a blog has its own distinct deficits. As the average reader spends ninety seconds on a blog a mere scaffolding of thought is put on the page which can be quickly read. Intentional brevity can allow for a reader's misinterpretation of the author's intent. Writing editorial commentary for a news organization I was limited to six hundred words to present my topic. How in the world is it possible to cover any subject adequately with such limitations?

As for my own "top five" I place accuracy and integrity at the top. My other values for writing are courage, perplexity and amazement. If the written word does not spark a curiosity or a sense of wonder to delve deeper to find the hidden treasures of truth, my job is not done. smile

Tammy