A thorny editorial issue is currently being debated in the newsroom.Most people are understandably shocked by the devastation and loss of life caused by the South Asia earthquake.
But anecdotal evidence suggests there's a significant minority of people who are less sympathetic.
In our phone-ins and e-mail and text message correspondence, a sentiment which keeps cropping up is "why should we care about people who hate the west" and, at its most extreme, "that's 30,000 fewer terrorists in the world."
No one would claim these views represent mainstream opinion -- and fringe groups often try to hijack the news agenda through co-ordinated letter writing campaigns.
So should a public broadcaster -- funded by licence fee payers who are being asked to swallow above inflation rises -- ignore the views (however objectionable) of a sizeable number of people who, after all, pay our wages?
There are no easy answers.
posted by Stuart at 10:36
6 Comments:
Maybe the same public broadcaster should also be asking the question 'Did we do anything to to help propagate such a view?
al-Qaida was pretty quick to appropriate hurricane Katrina and say it was God's punishment to America. It would be interesting to know what they think of this particular catastrophe... As for the minority opinion, sometimes publicising something horrible provokes public outrage; on the other hand, sometimes it transforms said horrible thing into something mainstream and tolerable. I wouldn't want to have to make a choice on this, but I'd say: report it, as long as you are ready to report an al-Qaida broadcast. If you are not ready to do that, then do not report the racist remarks either.
al-Qaida was pretty quick to appropriate hurricane Katrina and say it was God's punishment to America. It would be interesting to know what they think of this particular catastrophe
I would say that they would say 'that it was a punishment from God against the heretical Pakistani state'. They would also probably add that it was linked to Musharrafs support for the American WOT.
The notion of divine retribution through natural disasters is common amongst many religions including the christian religion. After all weren't there some religious groups in America who blamed Katrina on gay activity in New Orleans?
So should a public broadcaster... ignore the views (however objectionable) of a sizeable number of people who, after all, pay our wages?
Answer: no. Their views should not be ignored. Their views should be included in any (or all) broadcasts and reports on the disaster, together with people who think otherwise, e.g. Western charity workers helping on-site (for the sake of "balanced" reporting).
Reporters might also address the (to the "no-sympathy" crowd) burning issue of why Pakistan has not yet been bombed back to the Stone Age, like that "bastion of terrorism", Afghanistan. I suppose one might argue that charitable assistance would make it harder for the "haters" to gain support. Enterprising reporters might also look into whether Pakistanis offered any assistance to the US at the time of Katrina. In fact, the whole issue of whether the press (or anyone else) should listen to and submit to the will of such unsympathetic folk (whichever country they happen to inhabit) should be given a thorough airing. It would make a great debate!
I guess it depends what sort of journalistic ethics you apply to your work.
I'm not (yet) a journalist, but I probaly wouldn't do it, just as I wouldn't post a link to a radical Islamic website on my weblog, as I would consider this to be irresponsible. Why give them visibility and credibility in this way?
Xenmate
Post a Comment
<< Home