Secl. (Wiki.) |
by Zach Neal
Community journalists have always faced the
challenge of objectivity.
There’s no real litmus test for it and we should
probably always assume that we ourselves have some kind of bias or prejudice
towards one point of view or another.
There are two sides to every question. It’s an
unfortunate truism because there is a third side, an uncommitted side.
On the question of global climate change, there are
believers and disbelievers. There are also the uncommitted.
This helps to explain all the time, money and effort
in the quest to sway public opinion, always the surest guide to changes in the
political, social, and economic landscape.
It is nothing less than a battle for the hearts and
minds of the people.
We all have a stake in its outcome.
I, personally, do not have a string of thermometers
all over the globe, reporting back in real-time to some heavy duty
algorithm-crunching hardware, in order to determine if global warming is real
or not. And I’m smart enough to know that I can never really find out the truth
for myself. And there is no good reason for any other person to take my word
for it, even if I could do so.
Unless I was prepared to present my evidence, one
way or another and they were prepared to accept the data.
That works both ways.
I don’t necessarily have to take someone else’s word
for it, either. I don’t have to accept someone else’s data.
I could just shrug my shoulders and roll my eyes and
say I don’t know.
I can remain uncommitted.
Interestingly, the uncommitted hold the balance of
power. This is why both sides court, educate, attempt to persuade, or even just
intimidate the uncommitted into a state of apathy.
Sometimes just muddying the waters helps, especially
if one side or the other isn’t clearly winning the battle.
If the water is muddy, it must also be deep, or
something.
No matter who you are talking to, no matter what the
subject matter, no matter what the time and place, you will never, ever be
getting more than half the story.
If the person doing the talking is lying or
mistaken, then you are not even getting that much—you’re getting a lot less
than half a story.
That’s why a good journalist listens to both
sides—and this requires a certain amount of objectivity. It’s a good skill to
have, because it works as a full-time bull-shit meter.
Little warning bells go off when things don’t add up
and you recognize that maybe someone has an interest.
And when you figure out whose interest is best
served by facts and truth, and whose interest is best served by lies,
half-truths, uncertainties and smoke-screens, then basically you just need to
ask more questions.
The more specific the questions, the more specific
the answers should be, and if a speech full of rhetoric ensues then you are
onto something.
One side has facts, figures, measurable statistics,
long-term studies and the other side has a smoke-screen and a lot of rhetoric.
What you do next is your call as a journalist, but
if you’re any kind of a writer at all, you’ll get your point across in a
professional manner.
Other than that, brevity is king.
END
No comments:
Post a Comment