If some people whose views hold much prominence are to be believed, then I am doomed. After knowing that I can neither earn money nor adhere to the high morals of journalism I had so come to appreciate, because of some inherent professional trade off I am told, I am left to questioning my purpose of being a journalist. Afterall, if it is neither public nor self I am serving, what's the whole point in becoming a journalist? In a journalism class, after a well meaning teacher discussed how objectivity is not possible in practising this profession, I have lost the one last ground on which I had intended on being one. Truth and justice, he tells are only ideas. If they are so, then why I am wasting my time in a university? Why am I basking in the self righteousness every journalism student possesses in some degree for choosing a profession that goes beyond self interest to uphold the interst of the voiceless and disadvantaged.
The good news is I don't believe a word of it. Foolishly or not, I am firm on sticking to these ideals and believe they are possible and become a journalist afterall. Stupid, pretentious or downright emotional fool, I am not buying a word of journalism not capable of being objective. True, journalism today can hardly be called balanced or objective but that does not keep it from being one. To say, the structure and nature of jounalism is such that it can never be objective is submitting and then approving of the irregularities that goes on in the profession.
The central argument was since journalists are essentially taking sides, even if it means taking the side of the voiceless, journalism is not objective. My objection is if you are taking the side of privileged or the oppressors or those in power unduly, then you become unfair, not when you take the sides of the oppressed and disadvantaged for helping them achieve the equality they rightly deserve. Of course there are always debates on what comprises of oppression or injustice. But if you are ready to and wanting to open your eyes to it, then you will.
At this point, I remember the analogy of the beam balance being given to describe the inequality of people in the society. At one end are those in power who weigh down the powerless greatly. The job of a journalist comprises in trying to equalise the balance. If a journalist gives no consideration to this inequlity and treat both the groups with a sense of detached neutrality, then he or she is as much guilty of perpetuating that injustice as anyone else. If a journalist has to take the side of the voiceless, in trying to equalise this power balance, then he/she should. And that will still be as much objective as anything can be.
2 comments:
Impressive piece of writing. I love the fact that your true self has overcome the dilemma between being and not being, truth and falsehood.
Rubes, I always appreciate your views on any issue. But it makes me feel unhappy that after the discussion of whether objectivity is possible or not in journalism practice, you lost the one last ground on which you intended to be a journalist. That's not fair. The coming writing of yours should prove that how objectivity is possible in journalism by raising the voice of voiceless. You shouldn't be discouraged.
Post a Comment