This article was written by Cindi E Deutschman-Ruiz of the Poynter website. Ruiz presented the argument of journalists no longer writing articles that are always fair and balanced because there is always more than two sides, and often the journalist if forced from gaining access to one of the other sources. Ruiz argues that she should have the freedom to include personal opinion and to write about things that will become socially acceptable in the future, but are not write now.
She raises this ethical argument from interviews she has given over the years, dealing with the subject of homosexuality and a number of others. The author being a homosexual herself, said
“I interviewed by phone the leader of Colorado for Family Values, the organization that had spearheaded the campaign in favor of the amendment. My feelings on sexuality were no different then than they are today, and it severely tested me to keep my voice neutral and to ask non-judgmental questions.”
She brings up the argument of race, saying that if we look at race today, it is widely accepted truth among people that racism is bad and that all races of people are equal. She said that 100 years ago, this would not have seemed possible, but it is now today, for the most part. She brings up this point to reinforce her views upon writing about the gay community. Much of the American public view homosexuality as something negative or sinful. They don’t see homosexuals as on the same standards as heterosexual people. She explains that in the future, due to recurring social themes in history, that the acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle will become common.
Her main point is that she should be able to write about homosexuality in a way that she personally chooses, without being held to regards of what society deems as safe to write about. Ruiz says that journalists can be seen as more than just sources of information, but can be storytellers as well. She says that such a system would acknowledge that our own personal beliefs affect the approach to our work. Ruiz says that it would change the way journalism functions, all the way from the questions you ask to the types of stories your willing to report on. She is not saying to abandon the other side’s point of view, but to add your own personal touch.
I personally disagree with her opinion. I think many positives for journalists would appear; to be able to write their own personal views and bring in information that would not normally be included. The negatives that would fall upon the audience out weighs the good. When I read a newspaper, I want just the facts. I do not care what the writer’s personal views on the subject are. The only benefit I can see to this, is introducing readers to views that they might not have known of or appreciated before.
10 comments:
I believe everyone is entitled to their own opinion, although some people take that freedom too far. I agree that when I read the news I don't want to hear the writers opinion. I just want to get the facts. So, people can state their opinions freely, but consider the audience and the facts being delivered carefully
I think that this is a huge conflict of interest.
I am not one to judge at all, but when a journalist who happens to be homosexual writes a personal opinion-esque piece on the accpetance of homosexuality today, it makes the journalist look bad.
It is a journalist's job to take NO stance what so ever.
It's great that she feels pride for who she is, and people similar to her, but maybe she should be an activist rather than a journalist to raise awareness of the ever-growing acceptance of homosexuality in the world.
My question is how could this be seen as conflict of interest. So if I'm african american or latin or asian I can't write about issues concerning those groups of people.That's ridiculous. If I know that a particular journalist is a member of the glbtqi community or they or black, asian, latino,etc, I welcome their opinion in the article I want to know what other pple may think. The facts are great but sometimes I think you need more to a story than just facts.
I think that every journalist has the freedom to write about any topic that they feel is important to the general public. By writing an article that will shed light on issues related to homosexuality is necessary. The general public will benefit from the article because there are alot of misconceptions about the gay community. People are definitely afraid of what they don't know or understand. Of course, an article should state the facts. Personally, I value a journalists opinnion, especially if they know first hand or have a personal experience with the issue they are writing about. Other view points along with the facts, help me create my own opinions and view points.
I believe that opinions are very valuable. The problem is incorporating your opinion at the right time. I think that in a news story opinions shouldn't exist. The story is there to infrom the reader. However, the opinion section in a newspaper is the perfect area for a journalist to express their opinion towards a topic and also potentially inform the readers of a situation that they generally wouldn't know about.
I have to say journalist should not share their opinion. I dont think its politically correct for a journalist to share its personal opinion on such as subject as homosexuality. If the journalist is a homosexual or what ever of that matter it's not his or her job to state that type of information. Rather information that is valueble to the readers.
I'm not just saying on homosexuality but also about race, religion and so on.
Its our job to inform the readers and the viewers not to state our personal opinion. Its not "The View" where we share and dicuss.
The person that wrote the article (homosexual woman) seems to very one-sided in her argument. Her close-minded leads her to not be credible or to be listened to from a journalists standpoint.
I agree with you (the poster), in that the negatives for the audience would outweigh the positives.
>Ruiz says that it would change the way journalism functions, all the way from the questions you ask to the types of stories your willing to report on. She is not saying to abandon the other side’s point of view, but to add your own personal touch.
I can understand where she's coming from, that we need to have braver discourse in the interest of progressing as a society, but that sort of 'reporting' needs to be relegated to specified opinion articles. It's using news reporting as a moral pulpit either way, she's suggesting that progress IS what she sees it as. Most people may very well agree with her, but even when it comes to her example of racism, there was still usefulness in remaining unbiased in the research process. Stories that emerged may not have if journalists had castigated their sources, even if that source was someone like a KKK leader.
There's a function in leaving this sort of journalism out of plain news reporting-being able to gain as much information as possible, and also a responsibility to not take advantage of your audience and in essence preach to them, whether your message is arguably respectable or not.
It's interesting how the writer of the blog post about my Poynter column has taken it upon himself to decide my sexuality.
Mr. Turner, did it occur to you that your assumption ought to be confirmed before you posted it?
Since I never received any communication from you, I can say with certainty that you did not make any effort to determine whether your assumption had any basis in reality.
Wow. Really sloppy 'journalism'
Post a Comment