Last Saturday, we talked about objectivity in the newsroom. We saw that objectivity in reporting is a value that has a long tradition in the industry. That neutrality is part of the trust which readers place in and expect from journalists. But we also discussed the perils of ‘objectivity at all costs’ – that is, reporting scenarios such as climate change, where objectivity would result in absurdity. (You would not tell ‘both-sides’ of the climate change story – you would be considered irresponsible to give climate change deniers a platform.)
So for your Pop-Up this week, I would like to ask you to do one of the following two excercises:
1. Find an article that patently lacks objectivity. Provide a link to the article and then explain how you would FIX it. This article should be one which takes a ‘both sides’ approach to an issue that should instead present facts and evidence.
OR:
2. Find an article that lacks objectivity, but you would still consider to be fair and accurate. This should be an article where there is no arguable reason to include contrarian or denialist views. Then, explain WHY this topic/article is not suitable for a traditional ‘objectivity at any costs’ approach.
The word limit (excluding the URL which you must include) is 150 words. Please do NOT provide links to blogs, government controlled media organisations, or ‘alternative’ news sites. Look to globally trusted major media organisations – where that trust can be demostrated with institutional professionalism and ethical journalism.
