Why journalists shouldn't double as activists

[Lite Beer]

EDITORIAL
Why journalists shouldn't double as activists
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Reporters who cross this thin line confuse rather than inform the public, and ultimately it is the truth that is lost

The similarities between journalism and activism are obvious, but the differences are subtle. Practitioners in both fields sometimes occupy the grey area between, leaving observers puzzled as to the truthfulness and objectivity of their message.

When British parliamentarian Edmund Burke coined the term "the fourth estate" in 1787 to distinguish the press from the clergy, the nobility and the common people, he was in effect setting newspapers above the fray of political debate. Journalists then and now offered opinions on politics, of course, but their central work was - and is - in presenting the raw facts by which others might form their own opinions. Journalism has evolved with time and technology, its reach and its ability to sway public opinion multiplying along with literacy and global access. The temptation to abuse such power is unchanged. Who would refuse the chance to convey their opinion to the largest possible audience in the hope of having a significant impact on current affairs?

Journalists and activists are similar, sometimes identical, in that they can serve as a balance weight to the power of government when it becomes arbitrary or unjust. They gather and analyse information and formulate opinions on important matters. Given the breadth of their audience, journalists must share these opinions judiciously, in the form of commentaries that are carefully labelled as such.

Yearning for an audience of any significant size, activists heed no such restriction. But the key difference between these two groups has to do with reach and impact. Journalists primarily want the "truth" as they perceive it to emerge, and what happens next is of less concern to them. Activists want the "truth" to be known and, crucially, bring about change. A journalist might gather information about the abortion issue and then say to the public, "Here's what I found out and here's what I think." That reporter could be pro-abortion or anti-abortion, but the cup is never quite full, given that the pros and cons of abortion continue to develop and no one can claim to know everything there is to know. An activist will insist on black or white, either pro- or anti-abortion. There is no room for further debate or thoughtful reconsideration of the facts.

Much as some activists confuse what they are doing as a form of journalism - alerting the public to accumulated facts - there are journalists who cross the professional barrier into the realm of subjectivity, in a bid to effect changes they deem necessary. Between the similarities and subtle differences of these disparate callings lies the muddling grey area.

Some journalists even think that an activist stance makes them better reporters. That might be true in cases where the black and the white are clearly distinguished, as with the issue of forced prostitution, for example. Otherwise they are doomed to spend their days fending off accusations of bias from those whose opinions they have devalued. Like anyone else, all reporters have political opinions, and their newspapers and broadcasts often become the propaganda tools of political rivals. Journalism is a career strewn with moral and ethical hazards. What matters is what journalists do within these circumstances.

Thai politics hovers among several layers of truth, and that alone should be enough to suppress any journalist's urge to become overtly politically active. Insulting the opinions of others takes this unethical practice to a whole new level. While it's impossible to be strictly neutral in today's polarised world, and although most journalists have an activist streak, professional dignity demands that they be fully cognisant of the subtle differences setting them apart from activists.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Why-journalists-shouldnt-double-as-activists-30270056.html

-- The Nation 2015-10-03

[Somtamnication]

Once they become activists and part of the news, they are no longer journalists.

[ikke]

Where there is freedom of journalism, a journalist can become easy an activist !

If there is no reason to become activist, they wont .

[ikke]

"Why journalists shouldn't double as activists"

"Why military shouldn't double as politicians"

[abhaya]

If you report the "truth" and the powers that be don't like it, you will be perceived as activist whether that was your intention or not.

[NeverSure]

If the press is going to help keep people free, sometimes they need to be activists. This is why we need guarantees concerning freedom of the press and it's also why "some governments" don't like freedom of the press.

Cheers.

[LannaGuy]

more garbage

[zaphod reborn]

A subtle hit piece aimed at Pravit. Isn't the journalist who authored this being a political activist?

[chainarong]

"Why journalists shouldn't double as activists"

"Why military shouldn't double as politicians"

The worst leaders are Generals especially Retired ones .

[Srikcir]

A journalist might gather information about the abortion issue and then say to the public, "Here's what I found out and here's what I think."

I disagree with this example because it describes an activist or a pundit, and not a journalist. The example should be:

"Here's what I found out. What do you think?"

[Krataiboy]

Journalists who have exposed some of the worst political, economic and social scandals have been "activists" in the sense that they doubted the official line and were determined to uncover and broadcast the truth.

Without them we would never have known the truth about Watergate, Thalidomide and, more recently, the deliberate targeting of civilians and other excesses by US forces engaged in the so-called war on terror.

One can only assume the editor of the Nation, which has on occasion been highly critical of the Kingdom's present leadership, has been got at. He or she should heed the advice of arguably the greatest editor of them all, the Daily Mirror's Hugh Cudlipp - "Publish and be damned!".

[chainarong]

It may come as no surprise to expats where their country has a freedom of press, but for many regardless of what country , the press pay an important part in daily lives , for without media coverage , how would we ever know who the politicians are, for example, that are ripping off the system or are introducing some stupid law , free media has an important part to play, if media has no freedom and they are obliged to report only what the information department releases , besides social media , the people are not being told the truth and this in turn leads to distrust by the people and then leads to trouble, Thailand has been down this road before , in some sensitive cases their is a case for censorship eg security matters , however for the most , the population is only interested when the next round of pay talks are due , so they can survive another day or in Thailand's case, when are Democratic elections going to be held.

[WitawatWatawit]

^^^ Pravit made the mistake of wearing his heart on his sleeve. And it annoyed many people because his views were of the extreme left. Still, that was no reason to force him out in such an expeditious way - after all, they tolerated his writing for more than 20 years. No, there was a degree of spinelessness involved. I'm seriously surprised that Suthichai and Thepchai allowed this to happen. Suthichai has always been a critic of the powerful, while Thepchai went through a lot of conflict, damaging conflict, with Thaksin - who likewise used his power in office to severely wound The Nation and Thepchai personally, while Pravit was interviewing his uni cronies in the far left and allowed to present his reports in the Nation.

This editorial stinks of an effort - and a lame one at that - to try to justify their actions over Pravit. The editor and his staff need to put up a more convincing argument. Every journalist is an activist in one form or another. It goes with the territory and is what, in some measure, the public wants from them. The Nation is just trying to deny reality.

[WitawatWatawit]

diuble post

[tbthailand]

Reporters who cross this thin line confuse rather than inform the public, and ultimately it is the truth that is lost

complete hogwash.

Pravit is a journalist with integrity. He spoke out and made certain that the truth was not lost.

For that he has earned himself a couple of all-inclusive military vacations and a forced resignation from his employment.

The apologist management at The Nation are simply showing their true Junta-butt-kissing nature by trying to recast a good journalist as an "activist". Unfortunately for The Nation, it appears that Pravit was the only real journalist on their staff. The ones left seem to only be cheerleading propagandists...

[bamnutsak]

What an IDIOTIC Op-Ed piece for a "newspaper" to generate?

I mean, if it was Pauline Kanchanalak ("tell it as it is", unless it's about her felony conviction), I'd write it off as just the senseless ramblings of a convict.

Just when you think "The Notion" can't gt any more ridiculous, they go and amaze us.

[quandow]

Once they become activists and part of the news, they are no longer journalists.

This was recently displayed in a dispute between Trump and former journalist Jose Ramos. The instant Ramos started yelling questions out of order and refused to acquiesce to Trump's rightful demands to sit down and wait his turn (it WAS Trump's event, after all), he went from journalist to activist.

You can't have it both ways. Journalists will always put their slant on it to feed their audiences, but they should strive to stay as defensibly objective as possible.

[Loeilad]

Utter tripe - just a quasi-reasoned excuse for limp-wristed journalism in the face of a regime that is strangling free speech.

At a time when the media should be challenging the government and all aspects of Thai politics they chose the course of self-preservation instead of speaking out for the people.

RIP investigative journalism and free speech - "viva lameculos!"

[scorecard]

Once they become activists and part of the news, they are no longer journalists.

Well there's lots of possibilities. I would hope that there are reporters / journalists who are capable and have a desire to investigate and then present the facts / the aligned arguments from all angles.

However it must be true that many reporters / journalists all of levels end up displaying a bias, and in many cases they want to use the opportunity to propel their own opinions and values.

[billd766]

"Why journalists shouldn't double as activists"

"Why military shouldn't double as politicians"

The worst leaders are Generals especially Retired ones .

Eisenhower in the USA was a retired general and he didn't do too badly.

[bamnutsak]

"Why journalists shouldn't double as activists"

"Why military shouldn't double as politicians"

The worst leaders are Generals especially Retired ones .

Eisenhower in the USA was a retired general and he didn't do too badly.

Yes, but of course he was ELECTED, and did not stage a Military Coup.

That said, many, many, many U.S. Presidents served in the military, and some attained the rank of general (Washington, Eisenhower, Grant, Jackson, Hayes, Garfield, W. Harrison, Taylor, Pierce, Johnson, Arthur, B. Harrison).

Amazingly, none of these conducted a Military Coup, and all assumed power LEGALLY.

Theodore Roosevelt won the Medal of Honor.

[candide]

It depends what is considered as activism. For example, in a democratic country, nobody is considered as activist for expressing support to free speech and elections......

[Solomon]

Regardless of ones profession, one should always speak out against evil.

Only cowards maintain their silence.

[seajae]

a journalist is supposed to write the truth, not take sides. If what he writes is exactly what happened it should be printed, doesnt matter if either side dislikes it but if they twist the facts or simply make them up to favour one side over the other they are not being journalists. The biggest problem with those that call themselves journalists in Thailand is that they are more interested in sensationalist writing to big note themselves rather than the truth, you can see this everytime you look at the headings. You can also tell which side they are behind from their writing as well, they leave out the truth if it favours their side and simply use innuendo and straight out made up crap to push their own bias. Unfortunately finding an honest non biased journo here is near impossible as they simply are not good enough at their jobs to be honest

[Loeilad]

a journalist is supposed to write the truth, not take sides. If what he writes is exactly what happened it should be printed, doesnt matter if either side dislikes it but if they twist the facts or simply make them up to favour one side over the other they are not being journalists. The biggest problem with those that call themselves journalists in Thailand is that they are more interested in sensationalist writing to big note themselves rather than the truth, you can see this everytime you look at the headings. You can also tell which side they are behind from their writing as well, they leave out the truth if it favours their side and simply use innuendo and straight out made up crap to push their own bias. Unfortunately finding an honest non biased journo here is near impossible as they simply are not good enough at their jobs to be honest

"a journalist is supposed to write the truth, not take sides." - very naive comment.

Firstly as the 2 are not necessarily compatible - in writing the truth one may inevitably have to "take sides".

People are extremely naive when it comes to the media and what they consider to be or not to be "bias" - just because you disagree with something, doesn't make that report biassed.

furthermore reporting "facts" is not the job of a journalist - a good journalist analyses information and presents an OPINION or ARGUMENT based on the information he has received....this may often be politically at odds withy both the reader and the regime - it is DEFINITELY NOT the object of a reporter/journalist to be unbiased, it is to present/analyse/criticise whatever is going on around us....and help us to form an educated opinion. There ae of course very few journalists who do this...even less in countries where the government interferes or controls what the press / media ca say or write.

[jcsmith]

Journalists can either express opinions, or simply report. Journalists can absolutely be activists. This seems like an attempt to suppress journalists from expressing opinions or reporting things which go against a certain agenda.

[waldroj]

Once again, I find myself disagreeing with the editorial opinion of The Nation.

I don’t believe that “Thai politics hovers among several layers of truth”, unless ‘hover’ is used in the context of hovering between life and death!

For me, politics in this country appears to ‘vacillate’ between deeply divided views where ‘truth’ is replaced by ‘deception’, and correspondents frequently comment in a way that is designed to gain favour from particular patrons rather than allow "truth" as they should report it to emerge.

Likewise, many of The Nation’s editorials over the last few years have been anything but “a balance weight to the power of government when it becomes arbitrary or unjust” as suggested in this article.

On numerous instances, the editorial message seems to be one of propaganda over authenticity, thereby, in the Editor’s own words, “leaving observers puzzled as to the truthfulness and objectivity of their message”.

As if trying to justify how The Nation reports the news, the Editor suggests that it is impossible to be strictly neutral in today's polarised world. Yet the Thai Journalists Association, in its Code of Conduct for members, clearly disputes this.

The Code that Thai journalist should adhere to defines their responsibilities thus:

1. Promote and maintain freedom of expression and news reporting.
2. Provide only accurate news information and arrange to correct those found to be inaccurate.
3. Be polite and honest in discharging function, especially in obtaining documents, photographs and other informative materials useful for news reports.
4. Respect the confidentiality of news sources.
5. Perform duties for the greatest benefit of the public and restrain from seeking self-gain and from being an instrument of any group of people.
6. Refrain from any act that may be damaging to the profession's integrity and image.

By choosing to present bias propangada, the Editor is right in saying that “Insulting the opinions of others takes this unethical practice to a whole new level”.

[elgordo38]

Once they become activists and part of the news, they are no longer journalists.

Fox News crosses the line every day. They are 95% activists and 5% journalistic. Its Clinton Bengazi Abortion and Planned Parenthood attacks, Obama Kerry emails blah blah blah daily 24/7. Over a 24 hour period we are lucky to get 1 hour of actual news. Ooops pardon me when the school shooting happened I think the actual news moved up to 2 hours.

[Loeilad]

"Journalists can either express opinions or simply report" - ridiculous
! No journalist ever in the history of journalism "simply reports"

right from the start the journalist's judgement or bias comes into play - they have to decide WHAT to report.......

Censorship or bias often consists of not what IS reported, it is what IS NOT reported.

every day journos and editors make decisions as to what goes into their organ and what doesn't and what prominence it is given....if they didn't every paper and newscast would be exactly the same and 24hours long.

[Loeilad]

Once they become activists and part of the news, they are no longer journalists.

Fox News crosses the line every day. They are 95% activists and 5% journalistic. Its Clinton Bengazi Abortion and Planned Parenthood attacks, Obama Kerry emails blah blah blah daily 24/7. Over a 24 hour period we are lucky to get 1 hour of actual news. Ooops pardon me when the school shooting happened I think the actual news moved up to 2 hours.

Fox news are many things, but activists is not one of them. self-serving, liars, populists, racists, propagandists, distortionists, misogynists, reactionists, alarmists, fascists, plagiarists, misanthropists, but not activists........and one has to seriously question any claims they make to be journalists