In a bygone era, we saw no contradiction between our social activism and our journalism. I could demonstrate and cover the demonstration. But, even then, I always felt outside the group of true believers. It was hard to accept some of the extremes that were being discussed. And I always tended to think critically about every subject, including those closest to my heart. I was passionate about civil rights, and I opposed the war in Vietnam. I published lots of stories expressing my opinions. When the time came to criticize the movement, I wrote those stories as well.
American journalists have become confused in the past 30 years; or rather their bosses have become confused. There is a false belief that a journalist should not have any personal involvement in a matter (s)he writes about. There is also the ludicrous idea that a reporter should not participate in civil demonstrations, even if (s)he does so strictly as a citizen, with no intent to write about the experience at all.
Many idealistic journalists have approached me in recent years; fearful that some potential boss might find out they had marched against the war in Iraq, or against Israel's actions in the Middle East, or against those who would remove a woman's right to choose.
This makes me sad. My generation of journalists fought for these rights. We trusted ourselves to tell the truth as we saw it, regardless of our political beliefs. In my opinion, our highest responsibility is to our readers. As long as we disclose to them where we stand, our managers and overseers should have the wisdom to step aside, and let the great democratic process of debating ideas to occur.
The impact (not to mention the irony) of journalists feeling forced to self-censor reaches well beyond the individual facts of each case. This is one way a democracy dies. One self-censoring journalist at a time...
3 comments:
well put
Amen!
This site is one of the best I have ever seen, wish I had one like this.
»
Post a Comment