Polio
Polio eradication action with informed and engaged societies
Polio
After nearly 28 years, The Communication Initiative (The CI) Global is entering a new chapter. Following a period of transition, the global website has been transferred to the University of the Witwatersrand (Wits) in South Africa, where it will be administered by the Social and Behaviour Change Communication Division. Wits' commitment to social change and justice makes it a trusted steward for The CI's legacy and future.
 
Co-founder Victoria Martin is pleased to see this work continue under Wits' leadership. Victoria knows that co-founder Warren Feek (1953–2024) would have felt deep pride in The CI Global's Africa-led direction.
 
We honour the team and partners who sustained The CI for decades. Meanwhile, La Iniciativa de Comunicación (CILA) continues independently at cila.comminitcila.com and is linked with The CI Global site.
Time to read
9 minutes
Print
a- a+
Read so far

Journalists - Passive or Active?

10 comments

Journalists: Passive or Active?

The role, positioning and responsibility of journalists and journalism related to Development issues is much debated. The CI's summary of the recent Nordicom publication: "Journalism in Conflict and Post-Conflict Conditions: Worldwide Perspectives" commences with this challenging quote:

[R]eporting on events is not just a passive process. In constructing a narrative for the reader, the journalist plays an active role in defining the event in question and underlining what is at stake. In so doing, the journalist both reports as well as joins the effort to forge a way forward." - Mahmood Mamdani

Question: Do you agree or disagree? Why? 

Comments

Submitted by jasonbrown1965 on Tue, 08/30/2016 - 09:26 Permalink

Re: Journalists - Passive or Active?

"...The media have a significant position in addressing issues of identity in post-conflict society, as well as communicating the story to the rest of the world."

Two challenges here.

Studies such as this one refer to "the media" as a collective mass, with little differentation. There are decades of such studies, that reflect upon impacts of 'the media' on societal problems. Yet there is still little evaluation of capacity of 'the media' to participate in these studies, or indeed, the problems themselves.

Another challenge is that academics frequently fudge the importance of 'the media' in creating mass awareness. Here we learn that news media occupy "a" significant position addressing issues. As indicated in an earlier post about the enduring importance of radio in reaching mass audiences, mass media, I suggest, occupy 'the' significant position.

Even with most countries enjoying wide access to mobile phone services, broadcasting remains the main means by which people receive information about the world around them.

To answer the question raised by Feek in the Comminit email, journalists are very active in reporting problems, but less so in reporting solutions.

Journalists are most passive when it comes to their own affairs - issues of ethics, capacity and development. After nearly a decade of vaguely discussing a worldwide crisis in journalism, there is still little recognition that the Fourth Estate has failed, and that journalism is beyond crisis.

To better serve communities suffering conflict, and its subsequent impacts, journalists need to move beyond being passive observers of their own affairs, and engage actively in finding solutions to global journalism crises.

I'd suggest this starts with abandoning fixations on finding new "business models" and working towards attaining funding neutrality - a mixture of private and public resourcing.

Submitted by Sugata Roy on Tue, 08/30/2016 - 11:08 Permalink

Re: Journalists - Passive or Active

We have to see the structure of journalism world. We have three types of journalists - Senior Journalists who wriites columns, next are journalists in the middle level who only report on the facts on ground and lastly we have entry level journalists or stringers. The last groups only report small petty stories and if they stumble upon a big news its taken over by the middle level journalists. The terms of reference of these two types of journos are only to report facts, highlight only problem and at regular interval act like activists. They can't have opinion on solution. They are trained only to speak of problem.

The solution are offered by the columnists but it may or may not be accepted by the bureaucrates and policy makers. So the journalists are left with no option other than highlighting the problems. Interestingly, policy makers wake up only to hue and cry not to a piece which offers solution. Thats the unfortunate scenario in the south Asia.

This wiil contunue until there is a policy where, views of journos, are integrated in the decision making process. This will bring change in the reporting style and stories on best practices and solutions will find its way.

regards

Sugata

    

Submitted by vivien morgan on Wed, 08/31/2016 - 02:16 Permalink

Re: Journalists - Passive or Active

Journalists report and cover events- providing accurate and balanced information so that their readers, viewers or listeners can decide for themselves about their reaction. unless clearly stated, a jurnalist is not there to 'change the world and offer solutions' but by highlighting a situation or crisis- for exampe the war in Syria, they can keep the public debate going.

I don't agree  with the comment that their job is '  to move beyond being passive observers of their own affairs, and engage actively in finding solutions to global journalism crises.'

The crises or restrictions on reporting and freedom of expression come from the existing political authorities in respective countries. All the journalist can do is to cotinue to report and show the reality of situations.

Opinion pieces are a different category where the journalist, in my perception, is raising his or her head above the parapet and is encouraging others to shoot back their thoughts-and again to stimulate debate. The role of 'brave' journalism is to do this in the face of authoritarianism and to fight for freedom of expression- whatever the personal cost.

I don't believe it is a question of being passive or active - it's a question of degree, of situation and personal choice. There is another distinction to add to this and that is freelance or independent journalists can comment especially via the Web, those employed by media owners are more bound to the organisation's editorial policy.

Finally there are the 'citizen' journalists and commentators who use their smart phones and cameras and computers to provide evidence of events and play an enormously important role now in the public's understanding of current affairs.

Journalists - Passive or Active? - Jason Brown comments on the post by Vivien Morgan

Hi Vivien, thanks for your feedback on my comment.

If I may clarify, I'm not suggesting that journalists abandon their role as observers. 'Let the reader decide' remains paramount in our day-to-day activities, as you rightly explain.

At current rates of loss, however, the example of the United States provides pause for thought. From a high of 59,000 journalists in 1990, US newsrooms are now down to about 39,000 - indicating the closure of the last newsroom in about 2050. Similar situations exist worldwide. For another example, I recently asked Cuenta de la Asociación de la Prensa de Madrid (1895) about their job losses after the Global Financial Crisis, which they place at about 50 per cent.  

The future? Given that radio remains the leading source of information for most people, worldwide, and that according to Pew Institute studies radio (and TV) get a lot of news from newspapers, and that newspaper newsrooms are the main centres of loss, we are already facing significant loss of governance information.

"The crises or restrictions on reporting and freedom of expression come from the existing political authorities in respective countries."

Yes, absolutely. Which is why I am suggesting that journalists need to step beyond their observer role when it comes to their own affairs. To advocate, lobby and campaign for greater resources, and independence.

"All the journalist can do is to continue to report and show the reality of situations."

Respectfully, I disagree. Extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures. The alternative is facing an eventual silence of the lambs led to slaughter. We are the Fourth Estate, and we are far too important to leave our future to those who despise us, and our mission. Or a disenfranchised electorate (if it exists at all) with no power or money to support this estate, or, indeed, the Fifth Estate.

So, trying to bridge the gap between our two viewpoints, what about approaches such as those suggested by the Solutions Journalism Network? That reporting solutions does not overstep journalistic boundaries when approached in the same manner as problems - obectively, ethically and quoting evidence from best practice and worldwide examples?

For example, newspapers in Asia are a lot healthier, financially, than those in western socities. What are they doing different that could be learned from? Yes, they have problems with ethics, such as envelope journalism (e.g. India), and state censorship (e.g. China). 

I would be most interested in your views on this, and from anyone else pondering #4thestate futures.

H Jason,

I'm glad we agree on some of the basic principles of journalism. Reporting solutions is fine- if they are reports or papers from think tanks and others, or opinion pieces cleary defined by leader writers online and in print- or in presenter-led reports. I'm completely in favour of journalism offering their audiences the facts plus possible solutions as long as these are presented objectively. Of course possible courses of action pursued can be pointed out as having results e.g. pushing for regime change or new laws.

So perhaps we don't really disagree on this?

On the demise of journalists- perhaps the 'traditional' role is disappearing replaced by one that combines multi-media skills- so that videojournalists are growing in number. Certainly this is happening in the UK for local TV,online boradcast channels and terrestrial channels too. Even for Radio, the BBC Training unit reports many more radio journalists wanting to learn mobile phone filming skills- to raise the profile of their audio reports and contribute on more than one platform. how do I know all this? Well I'm revising my text book on Practising Videojournalism......

. . .

We're certainly not disagreeing on the qualities of journalism.

And I certainly agree that we're all becoming more multitasked. 

Thanks heaps to Vivien Morgan for the feedback - all too valuable for a rooky advocate from little islands.

Where I believe her and I are still apart in understanding - not disagreeing - is in the utmost urgency of not just quality of journalism, however, or how it is delivered ... 

... It is the "quantum", and I use the term advisedly.

Wikipedia paraphases sources as this:

"In physics, a quantum (plural: quanta) is the minimum amount of any physical entity involved in an interaction."

Or, Oxford:

"2). A required or allowed amount, especially an amount of money legally payable in damages."

So, from these two somewhat disparate descriptions of "quantum", I am suggesting that we are beyond the 'minimum' quantum for journalists to remain involved in societal interactions. We are are now instead heading to zero where, a la Gawker, all that is left is for billionaires to decide the 'required' amount payable in legal damages from the Fourth Estate.

Alarmist?

Perhaps, in immediate terms.

Historically, not so much.

Journalism's quantum has been on a downward spiral since the Watergate era, a cover up that had the curious effect of obscuring the much larger Pentagon Papers. What failed to fade from the headlines was spiked under new management - cue 40 years of relentless media mergers. 

And here we are today. A failed #4thestate.

A War on Terror, and a Global Financial Crisis, both arguably faked, under our journalistic belts, not counting the feeble impact from exposure of Panama Papers, et al.

As individual journalists, we can upskill, digitise, monetise and entrepreneurise to our heart's content, but I cannot escape the conclusion that there is not enough of us, doing enough, to counter undue influences, sought or unsought.

This is why I suggest at least some of us need to cross the line from observation, to advocacy for an independent, well-resourced Fourth Estate. Or, as journalists, to support those who do.

Given the stakes, including implosion of social cohesions, observatory journalism alone is no longer enough.

We need action.

. . .

Submitted by bisiladele on Thu, 09/01/2016 - 07:57 Permalink

Journalists - Passive or Active?

For two reasons, the discussion about whether the journalist should be a mere reporter of events or active participants in finding solutions in a society deep in crises, will continue as long as the human society exists. 

One, crises are unlikely to end in human societies because of human greed, economic and environmental challenges, among others.

Two, journalists are not trained or made to believe that they are to offer solutions to societal problems. They are simply trained to report events for their audience to be able to make informed decisions.

For me, however, gathering experiences in the course of reporting puts the journalist in a position to stimulate courses of actions that will bring solutions. That is why I believe strongly in public/citizen journalism which encourages journalists to report the society in ways that make citizens' plight topmost priority.

With media outlets busy with survival strategies in a highly competitive industry, I think journalists should begin to share their experiences and form non-profits to use as platforms to stimulate activities that bring practical solutions to the challenges facing citizens.

These non-profits can work with development agencies, NGOs and other relevant stakeholders in achieving their aims. 

Aside being too busy with business activities, media outlets will be too careful in involving themselves in problem-solving initiatives because they don't want to be seen to lose their independence or impartiality which is one of their greatest assets.

I came to this conclusion based on my experience as a journalist in the last 13 years and my research project for M. A. Communication program.

Submitted by JSAhmad on Sat, 09/03/2016 - 16:43 Permalink

Re: Journalists - Passive or Active?

Journalists play a critical role in informing and educating their readers and viewers on health issues. This role is important in most developing countries where health communication are totally or mostly absent, People rely and usually pay attention to what is being told in print and electronic media.

Journalists play a critical role in health advocacy. Without active support of journalists, no advocacy project can succeed. 

For both reasons, its imperative to provide adequate information and understanding of the current or on-going health issues. Do not overwhelm journalists with irrelevant and unnecessary information though valuable. They usually do not have time nor inclination to learn anything which is extranneous to writing the news or story.

That has been my experience. Yours may be different.

Javed S. Ahmad

Submitted by Alexandra Wake on Mon, 10/17/2016 - 11:37 Permalink

Very interesting to see your work in this area. I'm concerned about young graduates, freelancers, going into conflict zones with scant resources. I recently did a piece on this, in case you are interested.