I'm delighted that the Black Lives Movement has sparked increased attention to the issue of "objectivity" in the news media. I hope the discussion continues within the news media and journalism school as well as within the general public -- and leads to improved and revised attitudes toward so-called objectivity.
Still, for what it's worth, reconsidering the value and function of objectivity affects news coverage in all fields and issues. As a longtime news junkie and liberal/progressive political activist -- and as a former journalism student, newspaper journalist, journalism instructor and government public information officer -- I have thought that too many reporters (and their editors) have a simplistic attitude toward objectivity (as well as fairness and balance). I probably did too when I worked as a newspaper reporter.
It's resulted in a false equivalence when reporting "both sides" of a political, social, or economic issue. That false equivalence has translated in modern parlance to the idea of "You're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts." And the result is that too often opinions are treated "objectivity" with inadequate attention by the news media to researching and reporting the facts of those opinions.
The unfortunate result is that "accuracy" -- another element of journalism that is as at least as essential as objectivity -- gets minimized, ignored or lost in trying to achieve objectivity. In fact (so to speak), facts are even denigrated these days. Think climate change deniers, Donald Trump, his definition of "fake news," and his use of "alternative facts."
So, GOOD! The news media, journalism teachers and we news consumers must seriously come to terms with what we want and expect in the objectivity and accuracy of news reporting.
Mathew Ingram writes in this Columbia Journalism Review article:
"One of the things that is being called into question is the concept of objectivity.
"Wesley Lowery, a reporter with 60 Minutes, put some of this into words with a recent essay in the New York Times entitled 'A Reckoning Over Objectivity, Led by Black Journalists.' Whatever the ideals behind objectivity might be, Lowery wrote, in practice it translates into an industry in which 'the mainstream has allowed what it considers objective truth to be decided almost exclusively by white reporters and their mostly white bosses.'
"And it’s important to note that this not only leaves Black journalists—and other journalists of color—on the outside looking in, but also makes for worse journalism, if by journalism we mean representing the truth about the world as accurately as possible.
"What qualifies as objective journalism, Lowery says, 'is constructed atop a pyramid of subjective decision-making: which stories to cover, how intensely to cover those stories, which sources to seek out and include, which pieces of information are highlighted and which are downplayed.'
"The piece sparked a conversation on Twitter, including a response from Tom Rosenstiel, a veteran journalist and executive director of the American Press Institute, and the co-author of a classic journalism textbook called The Elements of Journalism (a book that Lowery cites approvingly in his essay). In a multi-tweet thread, Rosenstiel tried to clarify what he said were some of the historic aspects of how objectivity became an industry standard principle.
"The practice began as a way of injecting more scientific rigor into the practice of journalism, he says, but instead it has turned into a devotion to false balance and other elements of what journalism professor Jay Rosen calls 'the view from nowhere.' ..."
Continued at the link.
Thursday, June 25, 2020
Nature Needs New Pronouns
As both an environmentalist and writer, I'm intrigued by the ideas and proposal in this article. I support further discussion and consideration.
Still, as both a regular style manual user and creator, I'm very aware of the lengthy and continuing discussions of the appropriate pronouns for referring to humans; specifically, referring generically to a single human as "they" or "their" -- instead of using "it," "its, "he" or "his," and "she" or "her." (I favor using "they" or "their" in the singular when a person's gender is unknown or not relevant.) So, I don't foresee a quick adoption/adaption of the suggestions in this article (or other suggestions with a similar goal.
Robin Wall Kimmerer writes in YES! Magazine:
"In English, we never refer to a person as “it.” Such a grammatical error would be a profound act of disrespect. 'It' robs a person of selfhood and kinship, reducing a person to a thing.
"And yet in English, we speak of our beloved Grandmother Earth in exactly that way: as 'it.' The language allows no form of respect for the more-than-human beings with whom we share the Earth. In English, a being is either a human or an 'it.'
"Objectification of the natural world reinforces the notion that our species is somehow more deserving of the gifts of the world than the other 8.7 million species with whom we share the planet. Using 'it' absolves us of moral responsibility and opens the door to exploitation. When Sugar Maple is an 'it' we give ourselves permission to pick up the saw. 'It' means it doesn’t matter. ...
"Let me make here a modest proposal for the transformation of the English language, a kind of reverse linguistic imperialism, a shift in worldview through the humble work of the pronoun. Might the path to sustainability be marked by grammar?
"Language has always been changeable and adaptive. We lose words we don’t need anymore and invent the ones we need. We don’t need a worldview of Earth beings as objects anymore. That thinking has led us to the precipice of climate chaos and mass extinction. ...
"We need a simple new English word to carry the meaning offered by the indigenous one. Inspired by the grammar of animacy and with full recognition of its Anishinaabe roots, might we hear the new pronoun at the end of Bemaadiziiaaki, nestled in the part of the word that means land?
"'Ki' to signify a being of the living Earth. Not 'he' or 'she,' but 'ki.' So that when we speak of Sugar Maple, we say, 'Oh that beautiful tree, ki is giving us sap again this spring.' And we’ll need a plural pronoun, too, for those Earth beings. Let’s make that new pronoun 'kin.' So we can now refer to birds and trees not as things, but as our earthly relatives. On a crisp October morning we can look up at the geese and say, 'Look, kin are flying south for the winter. Come back soon.'
"'Language can be a tool for cultural transformation. Make no mistake: 'Ki' and 'kin' are revolutionary pronouns. Words have power to shape our thoughts and our actions. On behalf of the living world, let us learn the grammar of animacy. We can keep 'it' to speak of bulldozers and paperclips, but every time we say 'ki,' let our words reaffirm our respect and kinship with the more-than-human world. Let us speak of the beings of Earth as the 'kin' they are."
Ediitorial comment: I like the suggestion for using "kin" as a plural of "ki" for referring generically to living "things" that aren't human. But "they" also works for all living "things." I am curious, though, about the possessive version of "ki" since the article doesn't mention one. I suppose it could be "kis" or "kir" -- one or the other, not both.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
