When the pursuit of truth is the name of the game in the journalism industry, an interaction between what one believes and how opinions will highlight sections in an editorial line produces quite a stance. It examines the subtle landscape of journalistic integrity, most especially when a journalist’s actual political views are something different from those held by the editorial team. Despite my agreement with most of the intelligent analysis given in the former essay, at some points, I find myself in positions of disagreement with the claim that fostering open communication within the newsroom is a panacea for the complex dynamics journalists face. Surely, the question that arises with this divergence coming at heart is as to whether heeding open communication alone can suffice in dissolving the intrinsic disagreement between individual beliefs and editorial directives.
The argument lies in the fact that disagreement on operating within the premises of a newsroom may also have multiple dimensions. Though very invaluable, open communication may dry up in negating the deeper structural problems behind such conflicts of personal convictions and editorial perspectives. In the case of dissent, journalists would have to grapple with the dilemma of either aligning to the editorial stance to safeguard the stand being professional or dissenting at the risk of facing isolation and potential career repercussions.
Notably, one of how this issue can affect journalists is presented through a professional dilemma that is much bigger than a wave of open communication. In the words of New York Times journalist Farai Chideya, “The more you express your opinion in journalism, the more you put yourself at risk of being seen as biased.” That said, pressures to conform to editorial outlooks due to job interests can compromise a reporter’s independence and his/her balance among various perspectives.
Another dimension that is worth consideration concerns the influence on reporting tone and framing as brought about by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Where open communication could draw a conducive environment where journalists feel listened to, the secret self-censorship that might befall them to fit within the editorial expectations might bring some disruption of the plurality of the perspectives presented to the audience. As David Carr puts it, “Journalism is printing what someone else does not want to be printed; everything else is public relations.” Journalists lose the essence of journalism being the watchdog of power if they tailor their reporting to please editorial views.
In responding to journalists’ concerns, there has to be an open acknowledgment that there has to be a string of transparency in communication linked with well-associated concrete structural adjustments within news organizations. Impressively, transparency should cut across the board in terms of editorial decision-making. “transparency can help build trust with an audience and create a workplace where journalists feel secure in expressing diverse opinions,” as the Committee to Protect Journalists asserts. However, as media scholar Jay Rosen put it, “The public is part of the press,” and in this light then engaging the very people may be a viable solution. Not only does this participatory approach democratize news decision-making, but it also brings in an external check on potential editorial biases.
Besides, embedding diversity within newsrooms requires a systemic overhaul of hiring practices. Journalists, like any other professionals, harbor prejudices – aware or unaware. The problem leads to a lack of diversity within newsrooms that permits the perpetuation of a narrow view and inadvertently helps create editorial groupthink. As journalist Jill Abramson put it, “The greatest newspaper editor still is shaped by their background and values.” Unless newsrooms also make deliberate efforts to recruit and keep a broad range of voices, perspectives, and experiences, they will be powerless to capture the pluralistic society.
This realization then trickles down to newsrooms as a long-term program meaning that news organizations can start actionable steps towards diversity in their newsrooms right away by first of all fostering an inclusive environment. According to a point given by the American Press Institute, there should be instituted mentorship programs that will help them navigate through the career of journalism into rising in leadership. This mentorship goes a long way in professional development as well as helps break down institutional barriers that may otherwise limit diverse voices from rising within newsroom hierarchies.
While this is key, a more potent way of addressing these biases while bringing about greater accountability could be making the audience part of the editorial decision-making. By making it more participatory, news organizations can harness the wisdom of the crowd. This is reflective of the modern media environment whereby social media platforms now tip the scales giving audiences a bigger stake in participation where they are not only consumers but contributors, fact-checkers, and even curators of news content.
Through incorporating audience feedback, news organizations can make it a corrective measure meaning that news organizations could be held responsible for the editorial merit of their decisions. According to media critic Margaret Sullivan, “By valuing audience input, news organizations can enhance accountability, build credibility, and amplify the overall quality of journalism.” Therefore, when news organizations relate to their readers are reinforcing the connection that there is between the two parties but at the same time intensifying the democratic ideals of free speech by acknowledging that there is more than just the newsroom.
However, it is important to recognize possible pitfalls and ethical questions that may come into play concerning incorporating audience input in editorial decision-making. Although participatory journalism is a sanguine venture that needs to be pioneered, it needs to be moderated in a manner that would curtail manipulation by participants as well as moderation facilitators from superimposing or elaborating on their respective views. Journalists should continue to play their gatekeeping role of disseminating information that is accurate, fair, and foremost consistent with the principles of journalism. An appropriate balance needs to be struck to ensure there is no watering-down of journalistic practice between engaging audiences and editorial responsibility.
In conclusion, although open communication is key to facilitating a healthy newsroom environment, it might not go far enough towards addressing a more fundamental problem that is faced by journalists when their sense of right and wrong clashes with the editorial perspective. Transparency, diversity, and audience participation are important constituents that may raise the driving currency of open communication. Addressing these structural challenges helps create an environment at the news organization where journalists would be able to voice dissent without entering into conflict with the core tenets of journalistic integrity and freedom of speech.
Work Cited
Abramson, Jill. Interview on media diversity. Poynter, https://www.poynter.org/news/jill-abramson-new-boss-newspaper-business-telling-unexpected-stories-and-promoting-diversity.
American Press Institute. “The Role of Mentorship in Newsroom Diversity.” API, https://www.americanpressinstitute.org/publications/research-review/mentorship-newsroom-diversity/.
Chideya, Farai. “Quotes About Media Bias.” Goodreads, https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/media-bias.
Carr, David. “Quotes About Journalism.” Goodreads, https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/journalism.
Committee to Protect Journalists. “Diversity Toolkit.” CPJ, https://cpj.org/kits/diversity-toolkit/.
Rosen, Jay. “The People Formerly Known as the Audience.” PressThink, http://archive.pressthink.org/2006/06/27/ppl_frmr.html.
Alcindor, Yamiche. Interview on diversity in newsrooms
write