The paper describes ethical issues involved in the work of a TV journalist. The author – an experienced editor and producer of TV programs – diagnoses the. etyka dziennikarska zadania mediów: role jakie powinny pełnić media epołeczeńetwie reguluje prawo prasowe. wolność to eytuacja kiedy władza. Title, Etyka dziennikarska. Author, Jan Pleszczyński. Publisher, Difin, ISBN, , Length, pages. Export Citation, BiBTeX.
|Published (Last):||24 November 2006|
|PDF File Size:||1.30 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||15.2 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Dziennikarz Niezależny? Etyka dziennikarska w praktyce
Both the academy and journalism refer to clusters of activities that are devoted to the production and dissemination of knowledge.
How much does the world of journalism education reflect that of journalism? Making such assumptions diverts our attention from the necessary patterning in evolutionary models of journalistic practice, which are nearly always framed in conjunction with that which came before and often in not very novel ways.
I note here the now defunct Freedom Forum Center for Media Studies at Columbia University, which provided just such an opportunity to better understand the other side. With journalists increasingly being charged with addressing crisis as the stuff of news, however, we may need to do a better job of recognizing crisis reporting as a mainstay of journalism, particularly because nowhere is the public interest as high on the agenda as in the wars, terrorism and natural disasters that drive periods of crisis.
This suggests that journalism scholarship constitutes a valuable linch-pin between journalism and its aspirations to service the public sphere.
One is that the bulk of our scholarship rests on an all too familiar conversation about journalism involvement, which repeatedly makes the call that journalists are either too involved or not involved enough. So as a system of knowledge, journalism scholarship is uniquely poised to remind journalism to do two basic things.
Thomas Kuhn was most directly associated with the now somewhat fundamental notion that knowledge depends on consensus building, on developing shared paradigms that name and characterize problems and procedures in ways that are recognized by the group. Journalists themselves have not been receptive to the attempts to microscopically examine what they do, despite the fact that their ground conditions are rapidly changing. In other words, journalism scholarship can and should provide journalists with a wealth of accessible knowledge against which to situate their practice, but we need more forums in which to make that happen.
Just two weeks ago, a new report by Michael Schudson and Leonard Downie argued for alternative modes of funding journalism — philanthropy, universities, non profits, government. An energized exchange between journalism scholarship and journalism serves the public interest because it will in the end orient the public toward a broader understanding of how journalism works.
Implicit here is the fact that journalists need to listen more to academics and minimize their sensitivity to criticisms that academics wield. When we factor in the online environment and further yet the multi-skilling dziennikrska forces journalists to learn to produce multiple platforms for one news story, we begin to realize that journalism has in fact begun to reflect real world experience more than ever before.
But it started long before that. But we can only do so if we reinvigorate our scholarly lenses enough to offer journalists new ways of regarding their role in servicing the public interest.
These periods of temporal pregnancy echo elsewhere in the world too — we can think of the near simultaneous emergence of development journalism and asian values journalism in the s as answers to the deficiencies of models suggested by the global north.
The fact that few other forums exist that quite reproduce that experience suggests that neither side has made exchange a targeted goal. In assuming that journalism is dynamic and constantly evolving? On the way to establishing consensus, individuals favoring competing insights battle over definitions, terms of reference and boundaries of inclusion and exclusion.
And thirdly, the gaps and misnomers in our scholarship still bewilder. The real world of journalism needs to be more firmly grounded in our work.
It offers the tools through which to stead journalism against political attacks which lack historical understanding, to help it better contextualize commercial onslaughts, to offset the hysteria of moral panics which see new technological developments as changing old relationships between young and old or private and public.
Journalists are not responsible for the world, but journalism scholars are instrumental to enabling a better connection between journalists and their world. How could we understand the workings of the polity? Is the online explosion so very different from the expansion into radio in the s?
Those forces push broadly during certain periods toward change in multiple domains, not just journalism.
Rather, different voices offer more — and more complete — ways to understand what journalism is, each having evolved in conjunction with its own set of premises about what matters and in which ways. My message should by now be clear: Likewise, a journalism scholarship that facilitates these qualities ultimately works rziennikarska public benefit too.
We might want to ask why we have such an interest in labeling things from anew? Though news practice takes on unique shape in the various regions in which it is practiced, the vast majority of scholarship still focuses on journalism in its U.
They live in an environment in which economic imperatives and bottom-line pressures force the news to act as a for-profit enterprise, and so journalists are diversified, multi-tasking and multi-skilling in ways that previous generations would not recognize.
This notion goes far beyond the dziennikarzka of Kuhn, and it is implicated in scholarship by Durkheim, Foucault, and others — all of whom maintained in different ways that the social group is critical to establishing ways of knowing the world.
A second overused interpretive strategy relates to how much our understanding of news has been influenced by organizational logic, where work becomes routinized and controllable, not only for journalists but for academics too.
This has produced stubborn enclaves not only across each of the three populations but within them as well. Not only does this reference comparative journalism in its many permutations, but it orients us to the tensions linking journalism in each location to what goes on at its boundaries. In the US, both mainstream newspapers and broadcast news other than the morning shows are losing their publics, while a growth in the ethnic press, the alternative press, in cable news, and in alternative sites like late night television comedy, blogs and other online sites particularly among the young suggests that the change in journalism is rapid and widespread.
What does this mean for journalism? Once consensus is established, new phenomena tend to dziennikatska classified by already proven lines. Many of the starting points, end points and arguments connecting them feel familiar even when they are first broached. In both cases, we see a gravitation towards old frames for identifying what may seem like new problems, offering yet additional configurations that argue for a difference in kind for what remains essentially a difference in degree.
Are there easy answers to financial meltdown, global warming, disease? Are mobile phones and cameras bona fide instruments of newsmaking? The idea of interpretive communities, originally suggested by Stanley Fish and developed in my own work and that of others, helps us situate groups as collectives using shared interpretative strategies that are integral to the knowledge that results.
What is it about journalism that sets such divergent reactions in motion? It means not adapting to change, as Jeff Jarvis would have it, but riding the wave of change as part of its mantra for being. And yet we do not study and teach journalism in a way that reflects this variegated and simultaneous engagement. This not only includes understanding why we harken back to the old in describing the new — ehyka in the repetitive invocations of new journalism, for instance — but offers a persistent reminder that all environments have had multiple repetitive experiences over time.
Each of these three points orient backward rather than forward, paralleling in eyyka the reactivity we see emerging so acutely in journalists themselves. Finally, we have underplayed the diverse global forms of journalism. I think the message is a simple one: In demarcating new beginnings? Journalism scholarship can teach journalists not to overgeneralize from a small number of cases, to consider events and issues incrementally, and to read.
What this means is that because journalists, journalism educators and journalism scholars function within the boundaries and confines of their own multiple interpretive communities, journalism never finds its own voice in serving the public interest. We need to help foster understanding of its trappings in ways that help both journalism and the public interest thrive — each on their own terms and together.