|
||
 Journalism and Activism by Barry Rueger (reprinted from Wavelength #7) rueger@community-media.com Back in September 2000, a far ranging discussion took place on the Canadian Association of Journalists email list. The CAJ is a valuable group, and the CAJ-L list is one of the best that I've seen. The discussion followed the Organization of American States (OAS) Summit in Windsor, and centred on the question of whether the progressive media people (who were barred from the site) should counted as "journalists". At the time that I wrote this I was asked to add it to the CSIRP newsletter. I chose to let it sit for a few months, but have decided that it's worth looking at again. The comment which set me off was: "I'm usually a fence-sitter and live in shades of grey, but on this one I'm black and white: Real journalists should not also be members of "activist" groups." My response: I refuse to believe any "journalist" who claims that their opinions and beliefs aren't a significant influence on everything that they write. I can't think that many journalists enter the field without some element of "change the world" gleaming in their eye. I think that Crusading Journalists are a good thing. I don't believe that any of us (here) accept anything that we read without considering the author, the publisher, the owner, and the political or philosophical stripe of each. (One more good reason to read the byline eh?) I could perhaps have phrased my comment (to the list) differently. How about: "CJAM, a local campus station, which reported the events mostly from the viewpoint of, and using interviews with, the activists on the scene, as opposed to the Windsor Star, the city's major daily, who relied more heavily on Police briefings and OAS press conferences" As we well know, and as we periodically discuss to near death, every story in every media outlet involves hundreds of decisions. Who you choose to interview, and what questions you ask make a tremendous difference. So does an owner or publisher with a strong agenda. And of course, where does one begin to define "activist"? A member of a Registered political party? A member of the Communist Party of Canada? A member of the Shriners? A voter? What about members of the Canadian Media Guild? I assume that their organization lobbies government to increase CBC funding, and hence their members' job security. Does that exclude all CMG members from being "journalists". Some believe that journalists should not belong to any organization, or hold investments in businesses that they cover, or drink with the politicians that they follow on Parliament Hill. That's an ideal, but the reality is that if you spend your working life with politicians, you make friends and build alliances. If you have kids you'll hopefully be involved in the PTA or school organizations. If you've got an RRSP you'll wind up writing about companies and economic issues that you're hoping will somehow allow you live in comfort in your old age. Journalists, no matter where they work, don't exist in a bubble. If anything they tend to be better informed and consequently will sometimes be even more impassioned when they see the injustices around us. That's what makes for powerful reporting. CBC and many other media outlets are filled with people who began their work in community radio. When these people were reporting for CKCU, or CJAM, or CKUT, or CKLN they took their responsibilities every bit as seriously as anyone working at the Fifth Estate. I understand your point, that journalists should not be part of the story that they are covering, but I have to argue that a journalist is part of every story, just because they choose to write about it. By definition it is not "news" until it has been reported in print or in the electronic media. If you decide that one story matters more than another, or that one viewpoint should be in the lede and another buried several paragraphs later, then you have become part of the story. Is This Magazine more trustworthy than the National Post? Are their reporters and writers any less credible? When the Post prints the ravings of the Fraser Institute or the Chamber of Commerce is that any less reprehensible than letting some silver spoon anarchist prattle on for an hour at CIUT or CITR? I don't see a difference. When I read some of the PR passing as business reporting in the Citizen, I react as strongly as when some half baked junior socialist starts raving about the Cause of the Month. I'm left wing, no doubt, but I'm also highly critical of the amount of flakey discussion and writing coming out of the Left. I just wish there was someone on the Right that was equally critical of the drivel that sometimes shows up in the big-time media. We're all activists, at least if we care enough about our world to want to improve it. Some of us would like to do that through tax cuts and "tough-love", some through social programs. Reporting is an activist act. When you report a story you are standing on a rooftop, shouting at people and telling them that this is so Important that everyone in your town needs to know about it. No-one reports on the guy next door cutting his grass. They report on stories that they think have a significant impact, usually negative, on the people around them. Reporters expose injustices and point to the weaknesses in our Leaders. That is Activism, just a surely as walking down Ouellette Avenue with a banner. Copyright CSIRP 2001 Copyright for materials on this website is the property of the content creators and the Canadian Society for Independent Radio Production, unless otherwise noted. Materials may be freely used by non-profit organizations and educational institutions for non-commercial purposes only. For evaluation purposes, CSIRP would appreciate it if you would let us know how you have used these materials, and in what context. Material reproduced from this website must include the CSIRP logo, website address and this message. |
