Truth and Ways of Presenting it

We talked in class on Thursday about "Truth". Whenever I'm asked about what my purpose is as a budding journalist, I say automatically "to find the facts and report them." Our book said that virtually all journalists agree with me and identify their primary goal in five words: seek and report the truth. This is a great ideal to aim for, but what exactly is "the truth"? And how do so many different news sources take the same facts and portray them in such different ways? Are all of them telling the truth? Sometimes we wonder if any of them are telling the truth. Here's the deal: people are all different and, unlike computers, people will automatically form different judgements and opinions about the facts they hear. No two reporters will tell exactly the same story even if they're both getting their information from the exact same press release. And you know what? I'm glad!

The point of journalism is not to merely regurgitate the facts verbatum. The people watching and reading the news like to hear and see the different presentations of the news. They like to be informed, but they like to hear the stories. Also, I think taking the facts and finding a person and telling that person's story is the most effective process of communication. People will listen better when they're interested, and people are interested in other people. So I think that the humanization put in every story to make each reporter's "style" unique, is a very good thing. However, when will journalists know when we go too far, and cross the line, by turning factual accounts into biased, personal perceptions?

Journalists tread a fine, fine line. On one hand, they have to be interesting to watch and read and listen to, and they have to tell the story in an entertaining way or no one will listen. But on the otherhand, they must steer clear of weighted representations and opinionated responses, especially when they claim to be presenting the "objective" truth. Some journalism organizations believe the way to go is to never claim objectivity in the first place; here's where we get the "Polarized Pluralist" model. I agree with Bro. Campbell that this model is the trend that our news media is moving towards. Beginning with the reporters across the British continent (BBC) and moving all the way to the "talking heads" on our own news media networks, viewers across the globe are becoming more and more "tuned-in" with the most opinionated people.

But I see a danger with this trend. Eventually, as we continue in this direction, people will only watch and read the ideas of journalists who share their own biases. People will only get news the way the want to get it, and everyone's ideas and personal opinions will start to be contained in these little, one-sided boxes. People will be less free-thinking, and continue to be more set-in-their ways. So, why not turn to the "Democratic Corporatist" model? Umm... ya, I think history has shown us why this might not be the best idea. Let's take a look at our own country: the government regulated press was one of the grievences that sparked the American Revolution and it lead to an entire AMENDMENT in the constitution to keep the press free of governmental control. And think if that wouldn't have been there... what would've happened with Watergate or Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers.

So it looks like our best option is to stick with the "Liberal Model". I think this is the best way of portraying the news because it gives the journalists the most freedom to cover newsworthy events. Also, it gives them the least amount of "pulls" for potential biases. With this model, I think we give the people the best packaging for their information. I truly believe that the main responsibility of journalists today is to do just that: package the information that's scattered out in the world and compress it so people can understand what's going on around them.