[ad_1]
- Objectivity has been a key tenet of journalism since the early 20th century, but some media experts argue that its application is ill-defined and impossible to achieve humanely.
- Presenting issues like climate change as a two-party debate is still somewhat common, often justified under the banner of objectivity, but it’s not the same as many environmental reporters adhere to. Just one of the dissonant standards, argues podcast guest Emily Atkin.
- A journalist with extensive reporting experience in leading media outlets, she quit her day job to launch the acclaimed newsletter HEATED. This newsletter was driven by her desire to more directly report on the human causes of climate change and ecosystem destruction. She joins her show to explain her reasoning and why she thinks ideas like objectivity are outdated.
- “You wouldn’t trust a reporter covering the opioid crisis to see all these kids dying and not say, ‘This is a problem,'” she says.
You often hear the word “objective” used in connection with the work of journalists. However, its definition and application are hotly debated, with some experts arguing that it is impossible or impractical to apply to professionals and instead recommending a new, more precise standard of “morality”. Some argue for “clarity.”
Climate reporter Emily Atkin says adherence to loosely defined standards of objectivity is holding back climate reporting in mainstream media, and building trust with readers is more important.
Listen here:
Climate change and environmental issues overlap with both human rights and science, but they are often discussed in the mainstream as if they were purely factual topics to which human investment should be excluded. For example, “blaming polluters for polluting” can be seen as advocacy by both readers and editors, Atkin said in explaining why he started an independent newsletter. Ta. heated.
“I didn’t want to argue about whether we were being too ‘active’ by blaming polluters. I really thought that was what journalism should be about,” she says.
This dynamic is not limited to environmental or climatic beats. There is precedent for preventing civil rights journalists from covering protests, but such policies have not been consistently applied. But Atkin argues that, as with wars and health crises, we don’t want people completely immune to these human consequences reporting on such news.
“You wouldn’t trust a reporter covering the opioid crisis who saw all these kids dying and didn’t say, ‘This is a problem,’ right? We don’t necessarily think that’s journalistic objectivity. “I don’t think it’s a sexual violation, but for some reason I still think it’s a violation of the objectivity of the climate crisis,” Atkin said.
Teaser photo credit: by USDA – Flickr: 20130817-FS-UNK-0004, public domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=27895421
[ad_2]
Source link
