Group Three

Truth: The First and Most Confusing Principle

As American Journalists we hold fast to the belief that our work must not just contain the truth, but BE the truth. We try to consciously push aside our inner biases and to produce news that is fair and balanced. We believe that our job is to give voice to all sides of an issue and to let the public decide which view to sympathize with. We believe news articles should have no editorial comments. We believe in the Liberal Model.

But what if we didn't? What if we had a different type of system and a different attitude toward the press? What if our papers followed the suit of Southern European countries where political parallelism is prevalent, but open? Or even the Democratic Corporatist model where journalists have open political attachments and do not believe in being balanced or objective? What if we marketed our news sources to specific demographics? What if we embraced what the news industry is already starting to become?


Back to Truth.

How does one even begin to define it? The public demands it, but what is it? Is it the straight facts and figures of an event? Or is the context also part of the all encompassing truth? Group Three said the Tests of truth are Correspondence (accurate information) AND Coherence (fair contextual representation). But, doesn't context change with varying perspectives? Whose perspective do we report? Do we give equal weight and measure to all perspectives? Chapter Two of "The Elements of Journalism" says that we often try to give equal coverage to both sides of an issue. But what if both sides are not equal players in the issue? Wouldn't that be a form of distortion? If we can't come to a consensus as to the definition, how are we to provide what we do not comprehend?


So, I feel this argument of truth begs the question: Why do we even try? the United States is in the minority here. Most other presses have not adopted our theories on unbiased news. So what makes our way "right"? Is it "right"? Can we learn from other styles of the press? Would a sort of hybrid of the three styles be the most beneficial?


So. Will every country end up with the liberal model of journalism? Absolutely not. While ethical codes have developed slowly in the Polarized Pluralist model, they also have a specific target audience (upper-class, urban, educated) and will continue, I am sure, to provide specialized news aimed at this group as long as this model continues to make them money.

Am I concerned with the political parallelism that is becoming more prominent in American journalism? If the public is happy, I'm happy. I of course believe that news needs to be factual and functional, but if news corporations are going to purposely market themselves toward certain groups with certain sympathies, then as long as I have a job I'm happy. In today's economy, as a journalist student, perhaps I am not as idealistic about truth and objectivity as journalist students of yesteryear. As long as the bias is openly proclaimed so that the public can make up it's own mind and choose it's news sources--as long as there are other corporations that cover the other biases, I am not worried about the burgeoning political parallelism in American journalism. News is a business. Our duty is to the public. So as long as we are honest with the public, and we are making money, I don't care what model we follow.