For my newswriting class, I am writing an article about a recent protest by anti-fur animal rights activists at Macy's. (You've all probably seen them there with their posters.) Trying to be a good journalist, I tried to get both sides of the story--the protestors think wearing fur is unethical, but what is Macy's view? What are their policies?
Of course, the protestors were happy to talk to me and explain their views, but it was basically impossible to get anything from the Macy's side. The salesperson in the fur salon told us she wasn't allowed to talk to us and basically kicked us out, and the emails I sent to the media relations person I was told to talk to went unanswered. A security guard supervising the protest chatted with me and Kim for a few minutes, but insisted that his comments be off the record.
So of course, my story is pretty one-sided. But how could I have done this differently? Is this inherently a one-sided topic (animal rights - good/ corporation - evil)? How do I fairly present the other side of the argument if they don't feel the need to address the issue at all?
My bigger question is - how often does this happen in the news we read and see? How often does a reporter present mostly one side of an issue because that is the side that embraced him and gave him good stories and quotes?
It would be easy to say that as long as you present the fact that the other side was unresponsive you are still maintaining fair journalistic standards, but I don't know if that's true. I think silence is very easily misinterpreted, for example in this case it is not clear if they did not want to talk to you because you were a student, because they felt threatened, or because it is so insignificant it doesn't even call for a response. When I was writing up my article for this, I came across the statistic that 92% of people do not take animal activists seriously and 88% of people think that people should have the choice to wear fur if they so please. Leaving the credibility of the source of this statistic aside, if this was true and presented in the article alongside the description of the unresponsive party, the reader would leave with the impression that it was just not worth their time to comment. However, personally, when I read articles that describe how people refuse to comment, with no real background on the 'validity' of the other side, it connotes a sense of hostility that may or may not be present. So I think it's a fine line and simply saying that they did not respond might not be enough.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I think with all of these events, the rallying party will be louder and more eager to talk, and readers are aware of that and factor it in on some level.
I think you've expressed righteous efforts in attempting to report a story honestly and evenly, with comments from both sides of the protest. However, I'm skeptical that all news sources are as interested in honest reporting. Unfortunately, the media has its own agenda despite the viewer or reader's expectation to be presented with non-biased material. Whether it's CNN or FOX, there's no such thing as completely honest reporting anymore. With that in mind, reporters, if not ideologically driven, will probably gravitate to whatever will sell the best story.
ReplyDeleteEven not commenting is making some sort of statement- though not one that will help their side at all. There is usually going to be a side which represents itself better in any situation. If they had someone who did not communicate effectively and was irrational say something, would that have been a fair representation. Even if both sides make a coherent argument but one side has a more charismatic representative representing them, is that unfair? You are only trying to report most objectively what you have found out, how they present themselves is really up to them.
ReplyDelete