Providing a forum for discussion
Hi again! Ready for round three? We’re nearly done building our house of integrity, so let’s dig in for this last leg of the journey. This particular topic is a bit more difficult to demonstrate through examples in media, but it’s probably the most important one we have to discuss, so we’ve saved it for last. Providing a forum for discussion ties in with one of the main tenets of Borasaek Vision. As such, it will be key in defining us as an organization.
The tenet in question is that we will encourage self-reflection within ARMY. We mention this directly in our mission statement, and it is our intention to fulfill this purpose by creating a place in the community for discussion.
Now, you might say, “we have a forum for discussion - it’s called social media.” And if you say that, you would technically be correct. However, social media only fulfills a small portion of the “public forum” requirement that journalism should fulfill. In some ways, you could argue that social media is both a blessing and a curse in the world of journalism, the proverbial “double-edged sword.”
As we’ve said before, the internet has dramatically changed the landscape of journalism, and social media is one of the catalysts of that change. The speed at which information can now be transmitted has increased exponentially since the advent of the newspaper, and a culture of “someone else will fix it later” has developed. Since it’s easier to retract and correct things in digital media, it’s easy to take a hands-off approach and assume that technology will autocorrect any of the errors. Eventually, you assume, someone else will catch an error and the correction will drift across your newsfeed or timeline at some point.
This passive reception of information presents a problem. It’s putting an awful lot of faith in the system. As Kovach and Rosenstiel say, “How will the media system self-correct if everyone feels they are absolved of fact-checking?”
Using social media alone as a form of information autocorrection is, inherently, problematic. Certain people or entities, the “big accounts” of the ARMYverse for example, are influencers - they have pull. They can make an impact. So while they aren’t the same as traditional news sources, their reach can be just as large. Assuming social media will check itself is allowing opinion to replace fact and correctness to be determined by the number of followers a person has as opposed to the quality of their information.
An additional problem has arisen from this brand of logic. People tend to gravitate towards the sources that they like or sources that reaffirm things they already believe, continuing the vicious cycle of “whoever shouts the loudest dictates the truth, whether it’s right or not.” It also invites pandering because sources that are giving the people what they want to see are the ones that get the views.
Jack Fuller, former president of the newspaper division of the Tribune Company, describes the situation this way: “A newspaper that fails to reflect its community deeply will not succeed. But a newspaper that does not challenge its community’s values and preconceptions will lose respect for failing to provide the honesty and leadership that newspapers are expected to offer.”
Mr. Fuller was speaking of print journalism at the time, but the principle still applies. If sources only tell people what they want to hear, no one is questioning. No one is trying to expand their knowledge. Journalism should not just reinforce beliefs. It should make its readers or viewers think sometimes. It should encourage discussion. When necessary, it should address issues relevant to its viewer base, regardless of whether it’s something those viewers want to hear.
At Borasaek Vision, we want to provide the most accurate information we possibly can. We want to do the research, check the facts, and publish articles and blogs that will provide both ARMYs and non-ARMYs with quality information so that they can use it as a tool for learning and personal growth. We do not want to pander. We do not want to report only “the good stuff” about ARMY, or about BTS. We want to report the truth. Sometimes that might mean we voice an unpopular opinion. But in order to truly love something, you must acknowledge its flaws.
We are only human. We, as humans, make mistakes. ARMY makes mistakes. BTS makes mistakes. Maturity comes from admitting that these mistakes exist, acknowledging them, and working past them.
Which brings us to our last point.
Journalism and the viewer
You may have noticed that some things in this series seem applicable to more than just journalists. If you noticed that, well-spotted, and you’re right - a great many of these things are applicable to all of us.
In today’s news landscape, journalism is a product not just of “licensed professionals” sitting in the offices of the Washington Post or The New York Times. Every blog post, every tweet, every retweet can become part of the generation and exchange of news. In a way, we are all “journalists” to some degree, if we are talking about current events.
Which means, ultimately, that the responsibility for good journalism lies not only with the established creators but also with the consumers. We at Borasaek Vision can do our research and put together good articles, but that’s only one part of the larger picture. It also comes down to each and every one of us to not rely on someone else to fix errors; to not rely on technology to self-correct; to not grow complacent and only gather information from sources that we like.
Borasaek Vision wants to encourage discussion and research. Checking multiple sources to make sure that you have the whole picture isn’t a bad thing. In fact, it’s probably the best thing you could do so you can make an informed decision about any situation, not just about BTS. In truth, journalistic integrity is no longer in the hands of just those who proclaim to be journalists.
It’s up to all of us.
DISCLAIMER: I do not own any audio & visual content in this video except for the editing. ALL RIGHTS BELONG TO THE RIGHTFUL OWNERS. No copyright infringement intended.
Written By: Anna
Edited By: Aury
Opmerkingen