The answer to the question can't be simple. It has to be adapted to the needs of the individual your discussing news with. Even within the same conversation, the position of the person you're speaking to may require bare facts, and sometimes it requires expressing a position. The goal cannot simply be to inform, because the information is senseless in a vacuum.
The importance of information, for instance, can only be outlined within the context of a value system which protects the people's "right to know". The goal of the informer is to provide information in the way which best matches their value system. If the value system involves a total commitment to passively handing out bare facts, and includes the totally unbiased selection of information to share, then that's fine.
However, there will always be people who take advantage of passivity to further their own goals. Some of these people might have goals or value systems that conflict with others. Therefore, it is not uncommon for an ethical person who reports the news to provide a context or position or selection they feel will somewhat mitigate the abuse of bare facts by those they consider wrong or unethical. Unfortunately, this creates news outlets rivals with strongly conflicting agendas, and in the world of privatized news the determination to control context and positions becomes paramount.
I think the most ethical and useful news outlet must focus primarily on the bare facts and bringing perspectives together. The selection of news would be made roughly by the amount of people (not necessarily the viewers/readers) effected, and the degree of effect. Reporters should be expected to excel in terms of research skills, personal ethics, insight, knowledge, and technical writing ability. The presentation would be tasteful according to the constitution and expectations of society. News would be made available, but not redundant. Rehashing the same news is a waste of everyone's time.
For all these reasons, the most ethical and useful news would likely not be a privately owned news outlet. Perhaps a non-profit, or government supported. However, in that case, similarly the news would not be hijacked by particular funding requirements. Thanks to the internet, the news can always be provided for free anyway. If people want to be informed, they can find a good outlet, and vice versa.
Friday, March 28, 2014
Skewed Into Focus
This post is primarily a test, but here's an interesting analogy to mull over.
If our collective perspective of global news is out of focus, can unbiased reporting alone bring us a clearer view? What if our vision of the world is damaged or even innately out of focus due to natural bias? In that case, putting on in-focus glass lenses wouldn't do anything to help. So is there a place for selective bias in the news, to offset the perspective already ingrained? Or is any bias in the news unethical, as it risks misleading individuals who were initially on the right track. Just some food for thought.
If our collective perspective of global news is out of focus, can unbiased reporting alone bring us a clearer view? What if our vision of the world is damaged or even innately out of focus due to natural bias? In that case, putting on in-focus glass lenses wouldn't do anything to help. So is there a place for selective bias in the news, to offset the perspective already ingrained? Or is any bias in the news unethical, as it risks misleading individuals who were initially on the right track. Just some food for thought.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)