Prachi
The concept of neutrality in journalism is often associated with the principle of objectivity, which implies that there is an “object” – reality – that is knowable by careful reporting, and that journalists should take a truth-telling perspective, even if those truths are uncomfortable and offend some people.However, neutrality is different from objectivity, as it implies a distance from both sides, which can lead to the temptation to find two sides to every story, creating false equivalencies. This can result in the uncritical reporting of both the truth and the lie, leaving the audience to sort it out, and forcing a kind of symmetry on every situation, even when the situation is asymmetrical.
In recent years, there has been a growing recognition that journalistic neutrality may not always be possible or desirable, especially in situations where there are clear moral or ethical issues at stake.Some argue that fairness, defined as the equal application of certain moral values when judging the actions of parties in a conflict or dispute, should replace or redefine impartiality as a journalistic ideal.This would acknowledge the inevitable partiality of journalism, while committing to certain value positions and promoting fairness and accuracy in reporting.
No responses yet