Just had to alert to another fine piece of writing at Media Lens.
This quote, in particular:
Compassion, then, is the key concern - where best to direct our efforts in the hope of doing something to relieve suffering in the world. Journalism should be honest and rational, but it should not be indifferent or neutral - it should be biased in the direction of relieving misery. Noam Chomsky has gone so far as to suggest that a life without compassion is meaningless:
“So if you decide not to make use of the opportunities that you have; not to try to live your life in a way which is constructive and helpful, you end up looking back and say: ‘Why did I bother living?’” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Zt8svS2w1I)
This position is important because it provides the psychological motivation for challenging vested interests that are keen to reward servility with status, privilege, even power. In the absence of compassion, there is every reason to conform, to toe the line - to perhaps give the appearance of adopting dissenting positions without really rocking the boat. Then journalism is a job like any other - a way of paying the bills. To be sure, Chomsky’s position is an exotic one from the perspective of much mainstream journalism. When asked what he likes about his job as a journalist, Paxman answered:
“It offers you the opportunity to meet all sorts of fascinating people... If you have a curious mind and you like words it’s a wonderful, wonderful occupation.” But the pay is not good, he warned: “The salaries are very poor... There is no job security.” Nevertheless: “It remains a fascinating way to spend your time.”
I would frame "compassion" more as "do no harm" - acknowledging that true self-interest is unknowable because we can only follow the rail of consequences so far in our tiny human brains - as is proven in matters as diverse as high school shootings and the current environmental upheaval. We should always aim to tread lightly, and provide resilient criticism when someone does start throwing their power around.
Budding journalists, take heed.
This quote, in particular:
Compassion, then, is the key concern - where best to direct our efforts in the hope of doing something to relieve suffering in the world. Journalism should be honest and rational, but it should not be indifferent or neutral - it should be biased in the direction of relieving misery. Noam Chomsky has gone so far as to suggest that a life without compassion is meaningless:
“So if you decide not to make use of the opportunities that you have; not to try to live your life in a way which is constructive and helpful, you end up looking back and say: ‘Why did I bother living?’” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Zt8svS2w1I)
This position is important because it provides the psychological motivation for challenging vested interests that are keen to reward servility with status, privilege, even power. In the absence of compassion, there is every reason to conform, to toe the line - to perhaps give the appearance of adopting dissenting positions without really rocking the boat. Then journalism is a job like any other - a way of paying the bills. To be sure, Chomsky’s position is an exotic one from the perspective of much mainstream journalism. When asked what he likes about his job as a journalist, Paxman answered:
“It offers you the opportunity to meet all sorts of fascinating people... If you have a curious mind and you like words it’s a wonderful, wonderful occupation.” But the pay is not good, he warned: “The salaries are very poor... There is no job security.” Nevertheless: “It remains a fascinating way to spend your time.”
I would frame "compassion" more as "do no harm" - acknowledging that true self-interest is unknowable because we can only follow the rail of consequences so far in our tiny human brains - as is proven in matters as diverse as high school shootings and the current environmental upheaval. We should always aim to tread lightly, and provide resilient criticism when someone does start throwing their power around.
Budding journalists, take heed.
That's an interesting concept, and can be framed many ways: "compassion", "do no harm", "leaning", "bias", "angle". All terms with very different meanings, but all with very different ways of looking at the tint of journalism.
ReplyDeleteIt raises some new arguments about media 'bias' and the reasons and causes thereof.
I do like the term 'compassion' because it makes it very easy to ask 'to whom is the compassion in this article', which makes the 'and why?' follow up less complex and angular. It is a simple way of making a quick, direct point.
But you're right. It sort of ignores the harm that can be caused by a narrative or angle, and model that causes this.
Hmm. Just some thoughts. Fascinating piece!
Yes. Robert Fisk always goes back to "journalists should question the centre of power", which is accurate in terms of their duty. But compassion is crucial to WHY they should do that, provide the motivation for Js to maintain some integrity.
ReplyDeleteUnless, of course, the job's just a fascinating way to spend one's time. Sheesh.