In pursuit of the truth, journalists can be ‘biased’ yet independent

In pursuit of the truth, journalists can be ‘biased’ yet independent

BY MUSYOKA NGUI

During my time as a media critic I have come across situations which call for journalists to take sides while covering news and other broadcast content.

I have thought about the place of journalists in the panoramic landscape of news coverage. Sometimes journalists are biased. True, no one can be entirely objective because we all suffer from subjective biases which cloud our judgment. Others have been accused of supporting opposing news sources thus compromising the independence of their news organizations. This skews reality by constructing a false truth that does not exist on the ground. Credibility of such news outlets is left in jeopardy.

Question is how can a journalist be non partisan yet convey news as they are and not as he or she thinks they should be. One way of doing this is by removing conflict of interest in their work. They should not be interested parties in the pieces of news they cover. For example, if a journalist is related to a politician under police probe he/she should withdraw from pursing that story because he/she will most likely be biased and lenient to that politician.

But not all cases involve conflicts of interest. Sometimes journalists ought to show compassion to victims and survivors of disasters. In doing so, they automatically eclipse the victimizer. This leads to the accused being viewed as guilty as charged or at worse convicted. Mind you the cases are far from conclusion but the journalists pass the judgment too early. Does this prejudice the case ruling? Does it amount to contempt of court? What is it that media advocates seeking to create?

I believe an independent mass media must be committed to tell the truth as it is. When it happens that the truth lies on one side of the story source while the other is telling a lie, it should oblige the journalist to support the person telling the truth. The journalist will be pretending if he or she sits on a false balance of truth and lies. After giving both sides of story an unbiased and equal hearing, a competent journalist should go ahead and make autonomous judgment of who is telling the truth and who is peddling a falsehood. He/she should expose and shame the liar for thinking he/she is clever enough to be believed. On the other hand, the journalist should praise the truthful source for remaining steadfast with the truth.

Truth can be uncomfortable and bitter. But it is within the ethical practices of journalism to pursue the truthful facts by way of investigating solid facts. In case a journalist is dealing with an obvious case of two extreme poles then common sense should prevail. For example, a prudent journalist reporting on parliament debates should examine the debate and take sides as necessary. If the MPs are passing a law to exempt themselves from paying taxes or striking off their type from civil service list or other selfish gymnastics, the reporter should go full throttle and warn the taxpayer the implication of such draconian legislation. In this case the journalist will have mobilized voters from accepting to be dictated by MPs and saved them a huge load of tax burden. If that is what is called biased coverage so be it. If doing the good thing and reprimanding the bad boys and girls is being partisan then we will have to rewrite the rules of journalistic conduct. And by the way why should an interested party (read MP) draft, debate and pass its own piece of legislation? Mind you we have Salaries and Remuneration Commission to set salary scales.

I know it boils down to bad leadership and chronic suffering of our society but sometimes it takes  brave soul to stand up and say “no, this is unacceptable. You can’t do this in a civilized republic”

 The writer is a student of Bachelors of Arts Degree in Communication and Media at Chuka University. He blogs at musyokangui.blogspot.com

Email your thoughts to musyokangui02@gmail.com