As a matter of fact, there are many debates on whether journalists should remain as "observers" or become a "participant"
I think that they should remain as observers. There are two reasons why I think so --- 1) If they become participants, they might be missing a moment which they should have captured 2) If they become participant, in some cases they might get biased. This point might not be true in all cases though. The example of WW II is a good one. But for example, in the battlefield if a German see an American injured and then he see another couple of American advancing toward a bridge/building which he is supposed to protect, what he should do ? It is difficult to draw a balance. I would say it is probably a very grey area. Bias (percieved or otherwsie) in journalism is a different issue though .... In an utopian world, every journalist should have zero bias towards any political party, region, language, caste etc. But then again, it is not utopian world. --- Ram Sarangapani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks KC for forwarding those links. I have seen > the photo of the vulture > and the child before- possibily in these columns. > Great stuff, I agree. > > Yes, there is a lot of controversy about how the > media acts one way today > and another tomorrow. We are also conflicted when we > perceive bias or > hostility from certain newspapers/reporters. > > And quite often these perceptions are hardened when > people believe there is > track record. > > Now, one may be logically correct in assuming that > the media's role is to > just report what they see - come what may, and that > they are NOT responsible > to make things better (as in this child's case -help > it, or in the case of > the young woman - to clothe her). > > As logical as this may be, I think, sometimes, there > is a bigger calling > ...that of humanity and that of sensitivity. Things > oughtn't be so cut & > dried. After all, the media exists because of their > readership. And when we > are able to help (despite our professions), we ought > to. > > To not do so would tantamount to missing the forest > for the trees. > > To cite as an example there are so many cases of > German & American soldiers > in WW II where they have helped out each other. They > acted upon this (as my > Christian friends would tell me - its the Christian > thing to do:)) > inspite of their professions as soldiers, or strict > guidelines against > aiding/abetting the enemy. > > BUT....we have to be careful in our analyses: > For the media, they ought to take a lot of care in > making sure that they > don't wade into sensationalism at the expense of > truth. > > And.... we as readers ought to expect this of the > media - that they may not > report only things we like. > > Well! I may be wrong.. but thats my 2 poisa > > --Ram da > > >Ram-da, photojournalism have always been in the > realm > >of controversy. There are tonns of information in > the > >net on this. > >I just picked up one such case. > >This (Vulture and Child) is one such photo which > also > >won a pulitzer prize. The second link gives the > >details of controversy. > > > http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5241442 > > http://gec.tamucc.edu/article.pl?sid=07/02/07/194207&mode=nocomment > > > > > On 12/4/07, Ram Sarangapani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > The last few weeks, many of us have been > contemplating the role that the > > news media ought to have. Many have felt that news > organizations have not > > lived up their mark and have been irresponsible in > their reporting. > > > > Well, those interested might be interested in this > lecture by Mayes. Mayes > > makes some very valid points, and this idea of a > news ombudsman is quite > > intriguing. > > > > --Ram > > > > http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/nic/indialecture.htm > > > > Lecture presented by The Hindu in New Delhi and > Chennai, January 2006 > > > > "The news ombudsman a visible presence, an > independent voice" > > > > Ian Mayes > > > > Readers' Editor, > > > > *The Guardian* & President, Organisation of News > Ombudsmen (ONO) > > > > > > The ombudsman works independently within news > organisations at the > > interface between readers, listeners and viewers > on the one hand, and > > journalists and editors on the other. I sometimes > compare the position to > > that of a referee in a football game, one that can > get pretty rough at > > times. He or she the ombudsman, that is > represents a form of > > self-regulation that differs in one important > respect from all others > > relevant to the media, such as the Press > Complaints Commission in the United > > Kingdom, which apply across a whole industry. It > is the only kind of > > self-regulation that has the effect of building > trust between a specific > > news organisation and its readership or audience, > through the systematic, > > impartial and public handling of complaints, and > through the open discussion > > of issues raised by readers concerning its > journalism. I would put it a > > little stronger than that and say that for any > news organisation that > > recognises a responsibility to the society it > serves, it offers a real > > chance to build a new, more open and responsive > relationship with its > > readership or audience. It is also, incidentally, > something which readers > > are increasingly demanding in the new electronic > environment in which email > > and quick and easy access and response are > expected. > > > > That the presence of an ombudsman fosters this > relationship with positive > > benefit to the employer as well as to society at > large seems to be supported > > both anecdotally by ombudsmen who believe that > their activities strengthen > > trust and loyalty, and by more formal tests. In a > recent survey of * > > Guardian* readers, for example, 75 per cent said > they believed that the > > existence of an ombudsman made the paper more > responsive to their complaints > > and queries. > > > > The appointment of an ombudsman is a unilateral > act by the newspaper or > > broadcast outlet that sends a strong signal to > readers, listeners or > > viewers. It represents a positive answer to this > question: Why should a > > newspaper or news programme that by its nature is > constantly calling on > > others to be accountable for their actions not be > accountable for its own > > actions? I shall say more in a moment about the > benefits, the side effects > > if you like, that may flow from the appointment of > an ombudsman but I want > > to emphasise here that in my opinion and > experience any benefits depend > > on the altruism of the initial motivation. You > appoint an ombudsman because > > you want your news organisation to be an honest > self-correcting institution > > with dedication to getting it right and no > interest in getting it wrong. To > > put it a little higher, you want to feed into the > arena of public debate > > accurate information upon which the citizen can > rely when he or she is > > forming an opinion on the affairs of the day. The > questions for an editor or > > individual journalist are: Would I say this if I > was talking directly to an > > individual reader or, say, to a respected friend, > rather than communicating > > through the medium of a newspaper or broadcast > programme? If I slipped into > > error wouldn't I naturally correct it? > > > > Just before we come back down to the realities and > pressures of day-to-day > === message truncated === ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ _______________________________________________ assam mailing list assam@assamnet.org http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
