Sunday, September 5, 2010

JOURNALISM vs ACTIVISM

Journalism is a form of writing that tells people about things that really happened, but that they might not have known about already. People who write journalism are called "journalists." They might work at newspapers, magazines, websites or for TV or radio stations. The most important characteristic shared by good journalists is curiosity. Good journalists love to read and want to find out as much as they can about the world around them.

Activism, in a general sense, can be described as intentional action to bring about social or political change. This action is in support of, or opposition to, one side of an often controversial argument. The word "activism" is often used synonymously with protest or dissent but activism can stem from any number of political orientations and take a wide range of forms, from writing letters to newspapers or politicians, political campaigning.

In that atmosphere it is understandable to come across journalists who view themselves as activists. However, if a journalist’s role is to seek out truth, reflect the voices and opinions of those who don’t usually have a say, and to represent the whole audience regardless of race, religion, political affiliation and social status, then perhaps a journalist is, essentially, an activist for freedom of expression. Journalism basics One dictionary definition of journalism is ‘the profession of writing for newspapers, magazines, radio, TV and online’. However, I would argue that journalism, without clearly-defined journalistic ethics, can easily deteriorate into public relations (PR) and marketing.

Journalism has to be accurate. It is all about clear, irrefutable facts that are tested and well set out. Journalism also needs to be well-sourced. All evidence must be checked and verified. All elements of the story need to be thoroughly tested to ensure that they are not misleading and that they don’t magnify one side at the expense of another.
We should use clear, precise wording to tell the story and avoid comment and opinion that could add confusion. We need to be open about what we know, what we think we know and what we don’t know. Journalism needs to be impartial, objective, balanced and fair. We must write and broadcast to inform the whole audience regardless of religion, race, political persuasion, sexual orientation and financial status. We need to be fair and open-minded and reflect all significant opinions as we explore a wide range of disparate views. If we decide not to use some views, we need to be clear why. We need to ask ourselves why we are omitting some information or views and including others.

What affect does that have on the piece? Does it help clarify issues, or does it confuse? If it confuses, what could be the consequences of that confusion and who is likely to gain?
We need to be honest with ourselves about our motives and reasons for covering a story. The key is to ask searching questions to all sides, particularly those who hold public office, and, in doing so, provide the basis for a healthy and robust public debate. All journalists will have their own political points of view, but these must never creep into our journalism and they must not have any bearing on the choice of stories we cover or the way we cover them. Perhaps this is where the real meaning of the word activism becomes relevant. When all these conditions have been met, a journalist will have served as an activist for freedom of expression. If so, count me in. Not only do I qualify by definition, but I am proud to be a member of that global fellowship.

Regards,
Waqas Waheed

No comments:

Post a Comment