The data tells an interesting story regarding journalists' motivation in New Zealand. When asked how important different roles of journalists are in their work, after listing educate the audience at 3.99 (on a scale of 1, unimportant, to 5, extremely important), the second highest rated role of journalists was to counteract disinformation at 3.95. This role, which did not feature at all in the 2015 survey, has quickly become a central part of the perceived purpose of journalism to Kiwi journalists.
The role rated first in the 2015 survey, letting people express their views, has dropped to fourth, experiencing an 8% dropping to 3.56 since 2015. Indeed, this shift in journalists' purpose, now prioritising opposing disinformation, reframes their role for many in the industry. Additionally, the survey itself notes, 'there has been an interesting change; journalists’ support for the traditional neutral/ observer role (such as being a detached observer and letting people express their views) is dropping... activist roles of advocating for social change has grown.'
Not all journalists applaud this shift. The survey quotes one journalist claiming, “There's been an editorial decision not to give oxygen to anti-vax positions which has at time felt uncomfortable - for example, there was not much appetite for stories about the personal stories of teachers or health workers who gave up their jobs because of the vax mandate rules. I felt those voices should be heard even if it meant avoiding any arguments about the 'science'.” Indeed including voices dissonant to the general tone of public conversation, without crediting unsubstantiated claims, is essential in operating as media outlets 'of record.'
Yet, not only do some journalists disapprove of this new secondary purpose of journalism, it also seems to contradict an increasingly common tendency for journalists to publish information they have not yet confirmed. An increase of 35% means over a third of journalists think it is justified to publish or broadcast stories with information that is not yet verified. Is this consistent with a self-assumed role of counteracting disinformation?
Claims which are not factual exist on a spectrum of harm. At the extreme end, they threaten to be incredibly damaging to both individuals and society. False claims related to elections, for example, if widely accepted, may cause significant damage to the democratic institutions of governance. Commonly called misinformation or disinformation (depending on the source's motivation), renewed concern at its impact is often warranted.
Who gets to define what mis/disinformation is, and its consequences, however, are trickier matters.
Ultimately, the right for New Zealanders to speak openly reinforces confidence in our media. Journalists operating with the role of representing a wide range of views and letting people express their views reinforces this. This relies on allowing (and trusting) the public to decide fact from fiction. The core principle of free speech is founded on the belief that good ideas will ultimately beat bad ideas. It’s an iterative process, but one which in the long-term helps us preserve confidence in those reporting events and issues.
In a country where journalists' perception of their role is changing, free speech must remain at the heart of their work, not least because without free speech, there is no freedom of the press.
Jonathan Ayling is the Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union. This article was originally published by ThePlatform.kiwi and is published here with kind permission.
Not all journalists applaud this shift. The survey quotes one journalist claiming, “There's been an editorial decision not to give oxygen to anti-vax positions which has at time felt uncomfortable - for example, there was not much appetite for stories about the personal stories of teachers or health workers who gave up their jobs because of the vax mandate rules. I felt those voices should be heard even if it meant avoiding any arguments about the 'science'.” Indeed including voices dissonant to the general tone of public conversation, without crediting unsubstantiated claims, is essential in operating as media outlets 'of record.'
Yet, not only do some journalists disapprove of this new secondary purpose of journalism, it also seems to contradict an increasingly common tendency for journalists to publish information they have not yet confirmed. An increase of 35% means over a third of journalists think it is justified to publish or broadcast stories with information that is not yet verified. Is this consistent with a self-assumed role of counteracting disinformation?
Claims which are not factual exist on a spectrum of harm. At the extreme end, they threaten to be incredibly damaging to both individuals and society. False claims related to elections, for example, if widely accepted, may cause significant damage to the democratic institutions of governance. Commonly called misinformation or disinformation (depending on the source's motivation), renewed concern at its impact is often warranted.
Who gets to define what mis/disinformation is, and its consequences, however, are trickier matters.
Ultimately, the right for New Zealanders to speak openly reinforces confidence in our media. Journalists operating with the role of representing a wide range of views and letting people express their views reinforces this. This relies on allowing (and trusting) the public to decide fact from fiction. The core principle of free speech is founded on the belief that good ideas will ultimately beat bad ideas. It’s an iterative process, but one which in the long-term helps us preserve confidence in those reporting events and issues.
In a country where journalists' perception of their role is changing, free speech must remain at the heart of their work, not least because without free speech, there is no freedom of the press.
Jonathan Ayling is the Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union. This article was originally published by ThePlatform.kiwi and is published here with kind permission.
3 comments:
Well said,
I also find it annoying that these new words "misinformation" and "disinformation" have been thrust upon us by the merchants of woke !!
Gutter journalism is a derogatory term for media which use sensational reporting without concern for the harm it will do individuals. Misinformation, disinformation and straight out censorship of the facts are all tools of the trade. True journalism has withered on the vine and has no place in today's 'show us the money' propaganda press! Need I say more?
I gather the response to this study was very low so many honestly inclined journalist fearful of cancellation may not have participated. It would be interesting to eavesdrop conversations between owners and editors. The maximising of income must call for a lot of oblique but understood blatant instruction.
Many newspaper editors of the past were somewhat revered long after. Today's in NZ will have to live down their selective presentations and their associated contribution to the destruction of democracy in NZ and facilitation of the maori takeover.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.