KC I agree to some extent.
>1) If they become participants, they might be missing >a moment which they should have captured The journalist could have done both - captured the moment and also helped the child later. I agree, that there are situations when a story is moving too fast, the fleeting moments are of the essence. >Bias (percieved or otherwsie) in journalism is a different issue though I agree, that the media is ultimately biased in today's world. But the media is a part of the community where its readership exists. Just some questions: How would a media exist if it were to always have an anti-community slant? Should the media also act as the community's conscience? And going back to that lecture by Mayes, Does the media uphold the values it preaches? I don't know the answers to these. That is why, I think an obudsman as advocated by Mayes may actually go a long way. It helps both the media and the community. -Ram da On 12/4/07, Krishnendu Chakraborty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 [email protected] http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
