Sunday
Aug092009
The Value of Voice
Sunday, August 9, 2009 at 03:11PM
I just finished Jeff Jarvis' book, What Would Google Do? I have so many thoughts about it but one in particular keeps rolling around in my head like a loose marble.
Jarvis says that Google has created a society that values "creation, openness, connections, uniqueness, collaboration, and invention." Can't argue with that. My question involves how that relates to me as a news disseminator: What does this new Googley community want from me? What weight can and should a journalist's voice carry?
Admittedly, I've made mistakes in over-exercising my voice on the Internet. What I want to debate is whether or not they were really mistakes at all.
I am paid to be a reporter. In theory, I am supposed to be inherently unbiased in order to present a message to you, the viewer, and let you draw your own conclusions. But is that even possible? I am reminded of the argument by Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor in her recent hearings: "Life experiences have to influence you. We're not robots."
I've suffered backlash for blog posts, Twitter posts, and statements about my political beliefes on my broadcasts. I have criticized John McCain for not embracing the Internet and technology enough during his campaign. I have expressed confusion about Sarah Palin's resignation speech. I have expressed disappointment in California Proposition 8. As a journalist, do I give up the right to voice those thoughts? If so, for what greater good?
Jarvis calls for "personal political openness." He writes: "I'd like to see citizens use the web as personal political pages in which each of us may, if we choose, reveal our positions, opinions, and allegiances: the Facebook of democracy."
But what of journalists? Can and should we hop on the personal political openness manifesto? And is "unbiased" a fallacy? I may not always admire the stance of Fox News but at least the network is unabashed in its agenda and it succeeds because of that, not in spite of it. Sure they lose some, but the ratings show that they win more.
Molly Wood and I had a conversation about this very subject recently. We are both of the opinion that it is becoming increasingly impossible for journalists to be unbiased. In the digital age when you can choose any flavor of news you want, why would you choose vanilla? Why not choose the conversation that engages you? If you expect to interact with your media, why would you choose to interact with an opinion-less talking head? I wouldn't.
I do worry that a more partisan media will increase conviction bias, a phenomenon in which people ignore ideas and discussions that go against their own pre-established beliefs. It is certainly NOT desirable that we all isolate our own line of thinking but the Internet makes this nearly impossible. We are exposed to more thoughts, arguments, and sides of the coin and perhaps, ideally, this helps us to be more open in our thoughts.
Within the world of technology journalism, I certainly don't play it straight. I am vocal enough about the companies that get under my skin (Verizon FiOS, I'm looking at you!). But the question I crowdsource to you, dear reader, is this: Should it stop there or should we expect openness from ALL of our news disseminators in ALL areas?
In an effort to get the ball rolling, I will go right ahead and opine: I prefer openness. I don't want to keep my mouth shut for the sake of ratings. I know it is a risk, especially because I work for and represent a network. But isn't this what you want from your network? I don't mind a real discussion and I never mind being told that I am wrong. (It happened twice last week. See Thursday's episode of Loaded.) I want to have real discussions without pretending that I don't have ideas about the topics at hand. To heck with unbiased! It is a pretense and an affectation. Why not give open journalisms a beta run!? I think it is in fact what Google would do.
Jarvis says that Google has created a society that values "creation, openness, connections, uniqueness, collaboration, and invention." Can't argue with that. My question involves how that relates to me as a news disseminator: What does this new Googley community want from me? What weight can and should a journalist's voice carry?
Admittedly, I've made mistakes in over-exercising my voice on the Internet. What I want to debate is whether or not they were really mistakes at all.
I am paid to be a reporter. In theory, I am supposed to be inherently unbiased in order to present a message to you, the viewer, and let you draw your own conclusions. But is that even possible? I am reminded of the argument by Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor in her recent hearings: "Life experiences have to influence you. We're not robots."
I've suffered backlash for blog posts, Twitter posts, and statements about my political beliefes on my broadcasts. I have criticized John McCain for not embracing the Internet and technology enough during his campaign. I have expressed confusion about Sarah Palin's resignation speech. I have expressed disappointment in California Proposition 8. As a journalist, do I give up the right to voice those thoughts? If so, for what greater good?
Jarvis calls for "personal political openness." He writes: "I'd like to see citizens use the web as personal political pages in which each of us may, if we choose, reveal our positions, opinions, and allegiances: the Facebook of democracy."
But what of journalists? Can and should we hop on the personal political openness manifesto? And is "unbiased" a fallacy? I may not always admire the stance of Fox News but at least the network is unabashed in its agenda and it succeeds because of that, not in spite of it. Sure they lose some, but the ratings show that they win more.
Molly Wood and I had a conversation about this very subject recently. We are both of the opinion that it is becoming increasingly impossible for journalists to be unbiased. In the digital age when you can choose any flavor of news you want, why would you choose vanilla? Why not choose the conversation that engages you? If you expect to interact with your media, why would you choose to interact with an opinion-less talking head? I wouldn't.
I do worry that a more partisan media will increase conviction bias, a phenomenon in which people ignore ideas and discussions that go against their own pre-established beliefs. It is certainly NOT desirable that we all isolate our own line of thinking but the Internet makes this nearly impossible. We are exposed to more thoughts, arguments, and sides of the coin and perhaps, ideally, this helps us to be more open in our thoughts.
Within the world of technology journalism, I certainly don't play it straight. I am vocal enough about the companies that get under my skin (Verizon FiOS, I'm looking at you!). But the question I crowdsource to you, dear reader, is this: Should it stop there or should we expect openness from ALL of our news disseminators in ALL areas?
In an effort to get the ball rolling, I will go right ahead and opine: I prefer openness. I don't want to keep my mouth shut for the sake of ratings. I know it is a risk, especially because I work for and represent a network. But isn't this what you want from your network? I don't mind a real discussion and I never mind being told that I am wrong. (It happened twice last week. See Thursday's episode of Loaded.) I want to have real discussions without pretending that I don't have ideas about the topics at hand. To heck with unbiased! It is a pretense and an affectation. Why not give open journalisms a beta run!? I think it is in fact what Google would do.
Reader Comments (69)
I just came back to review this comment and see I mistyped. The last sentence should be:
News has never been opinion free (ahem, Hearst Newspapers in the early 1900's) but we should definitely resist the temptation to not compartmentalize and isolate the opinion from the data.
Abject apologies.
Ms. Del Conte,
I feel that - in your case - this is a double edged blade. While you are on-air reporting the news; yes, you must remain unbiased. This provides an unbiased, fair view on the issues being reported. HOwever, once you are off-air and in your own arena, such as this blog; you should be free to voice your opinions.
This is YOUR blog, and it should reflect YOUR views. The fact that you are paid to report the news makes no difference in this particular arena. If you write & post these on YOUR website, on YOUR time, then this should 100% reflect YOUR personal views.
I find it borderline tradgic that many news reporters are villified for expressing thier own personal opinions on various topics of discussion - even when expressed off-air.
My advice is this - Express your opinions freely. We have a First Amendment Right in this country, and it should be used as often as possible. The Constitution does not limit the right of Free Speech based on a person's occupation.
Personally, I welcome personal opinons from news reporters because it does make them "less robotic" to the individuals who see them day after day being unbiased.
Thanks!
TJ Thompson
http://www.ThompsonForCongress2010.com" rel="nofollow">www.ThompsonForCongress2010.com
thompson.forcongress.2010-at-gmail-dot-com
Open journalism invites a journalist to get information with the means that are available to her without consideration and enforcement of the laws, ethics and rules that guide professional journalists.
Without guidance and adherence to the wise men and women whom have established instutions to ensure the protection and privacy from those with means then open journalism is simply an open invitation to satisfy personal vanities while violating another person’s privacy.
Natalie;
(ack! This came out longer than I thought it would, sorry...I hope that you find it of use)
I've read back through a couple of your blogs, but I haven't read too many of the comments. I don't know if I'm covering ground already covered (and I’m assuming that I am understand your goals and questions correctly as well)…so here it is;
1.) As for news bias, that's complicated; Are you the Producer, as well as Reporter? Who controls the content? If it's all YOU, then I'd say "yes", be bias if you wish...but let it be known that you are filtering the content and that this is YOUR show, colored by YOUR P.O.V. and that you are not trying to present "fair & balanced" (laconic wink to FOX) coverage. You are effectively then, an op-ed Reporter/Commentator, and there's nothing wrong with that. I personally don't mind my favorite Commentators having bias, as long as they don't try and pretend that they're puritanical, old-school Reporters...which leads in to my next point;
2.) The news (like most things in life) is all about TRUST. As long as I feel that you're making your case based on substantiated facts…even if you draw a different lesson or opinion from the facts than another Reporter/Commentator who is of a different bias than yours...then I don't mind. At least I know that you showed me ALL of the evidence (important for that trust!), and hence, I was able to draw roughly the same conclusion as you, because we think alike (or maybe I can't formulate my thoughts as well as you can, and that's why I watch you to begin with, because I know that basically we'll agree in spirit, and you'll then be able to express that spirit more eloquently than I).
3.) "Entertainment factor" is a big part of the news today. It's part of why people like O'Reilly and Beck are so successful. I'm not saying that you need to yell at people or have confrontational interviews (that doesn't strike me as your style anyway). But you should think about what your strengths are in the area of entertainment and integrate them in to your show. Basically, you just need to be GENUINELY passionate in YOUR own unique way. If you're not passionate, why should we be interested in what you're saying? Part of being passionate means choosing to highlight the stories that you see fit. Don't cover the story the same way as everyone else. Find ways to look at things in which you know others usually won't, angles that are of interest to you and get you fired up and thinking...and which reflect your unique P.O.V.
4.) Lastly, always be intellectually honest. I think part of why O'Reilly is so successful is because most of the time, he tries to play devil's advocate when covering a story (not always, but for the most part). This is also known in sales and advertising as "Anticipating Resistance". In other words, you're intellectually honest because you recognize and openly acknowledge the other potential P.O.V., and you give it air. By doing so, you get even MORE "street cred" than so-called "Reporters" who are obviously leading us in a desired direction (either overtly, or via “news by deletion”). People aren't dumb. They know when they're being led around. But even when they might agree with someone who is doing this to them, nobody likes to be thought of as a hack! We get more satisfaction (and strength of conviction) as individuals out of honestly addressing the other side's view in the debate. ex; This is part of why I miss Alan Colmes so much. I RARELY agreed with him, but at least I got to hear his side's P.O.V...and this often helped to strengthen my conviction in my own P.O.V. (and Hannity's) because now, having fairly addressed all relevant points, I could honestly say that my convictions were strong based on a fair assessment of both sides. I don't watch Hannity as much anymore…even though I still agree with him for the most part…because there is no genuine and equal conflict there. Make sense? You can create that conflict yourself if need be, by playing "devil's advocate". ;-)
In conclusion, I'd recommend that you simply be true to yourself and to your audience, and the viewers who feel your passion and who share your interests will be there with you. The goal is not to win everyone over who agrees with you, but rather to garner that all-important integrity that comes from being completely honest at all times. Once people believe in you, they'll tune in to what you have to say...even the ones who don't often agree with you! And all simply because, at the very least, they TRUST you.
Trust = respect.
Hope that wasn't too long a read and that it was worthwhile.
I always enjoy reading your blogs, because they inspire me as well. So you’re obviously doing something right! lol ;-)
Keep up the good work.
All the best,
Don M.
Why in the world would I want to 'interact' or 'engage' with the news? Report the facts. I can form opinions for myself. It bothers me that people in the news media feel they need to impose their personal ideas or opinions upon the rest of us about current events. It is actually kind of insulting and a subtle implication that educated people cannot think for themselves.
If a company is doing something stupid (like Verizon) simply tell us about it. We are smart enough to handle it without anyone holding our hand or telling us how to think.
Natalie: I like your work on Cnet, BUT. I really think journalists should be A-Political. I watch/listen to some of your podcasts and when I hear political views I turn it off. Just my two cents....
I don't mind bias in journalism, but I think openness is a key to that. If I am not getting full disclosure, I greet journalism with skepticism. While full disclosure by itself does not create an automatic trust of the journalist, without it I don't see how I can trust the journalist, no matter how much their published opinions might coincide with mine.
I agree with you. For me, Openness is the only clear communication worth listening to or reading. If you are open about where you stand and offer it as such, people can agree or disagree with you...it's their choice. If you offer facts, along with your opinions, then I believe that, is the new 'Balance.'
I found you on Twitter, following Leslie Sanchez...whom I like, even tho she is a 'republicana.'
I look forward to following you. Peace.
Natali-
For an anthropologist, this is discussion is always relevant. As members (or outsiders to) the communities among whom we work, we can't help but form opinions, allegiances, friendships, etc. However, it is still possible to be objective (or at least approach objectivity) without being neutral. I worked with an indigenous community on the southwest coast of New Guinea and witnessed the devastating impacts of three decades of mining on their land, resources and lifestyle. While I certainly found the damage to their livelihoods (without appropriate compensation and/or assent) repugnant, pointing out the FACTS of their experiences was a good way to be objective, while leaving readers with a strong, irrefutable notion of reality.
Natali
Part of the reason that shows like BOL and TWIT work is because it is a discussion, and therefore opinions are required to further the show. Be kinda boring if no one had anything to say...
Loaded on the other hand is in a format that one would expect to hear the news without bias. This even has a prevision, as long as you present the facts, and then present your opinion labeled as such ( i.e. saying, I think.... or in my opinion.... ). This to me is more than acceptable, it's appreciated. The expectation is that you have either experience with the subject, or have heard from multiple sources before shaping your opinion. In this day and age where there is a dearth of news sources, it seems that a journalist's (note journalist, not reporter...) job is more as a filter. As consumers it's our job to decide which filter we trust and enjoy.
Natalie,
I too am a broadcast journalist.
Our responsibility is to report the facts
and leave the opinions up to the viewers/listeners.
Once you start to offer your opinion during a so called
report you become an entertainer and lose your journalistic
credibility and objectivity. If your goal is to become a news entertainer
in the realm of consumer electronics then keep doing what you are doing.
If you wish to be an objective journalist than drop your personal opinions.
There is nothing wrong with being a "vanilla" journalist is it means you are
part of the rare breed of journalists left that stick to the facts and stay off
their soap boxes.
Respectfully,
David
You asked questions and I felt I needed to respond. You once said on "loaded" that people should be restrained from calling other people names to which I responded, not so. Now you say that you, as a journalist, should be able to speak your mind. I feel a conflict within you here.
The only reason I can understand a journalist voicing their own opinion is to sway others into thinking the way they do. As an individual on your own website or telling your mom, dad and sister, now that's something else.
Celebrities and journalists that use their media positions to promote their own agenda discuss me. They only want to control people or sway their opinion.
Leave your religion and your politics at home or on your personal media. You will get more respect in the long term. Looks like others may agree but I don't always follow the consensus.
Oh, I think Sotomayor is prejudice and I hope you are not quoting her for her judicial opinions but maybe because you share a common background.
You should be happy you're not in the Bay Area today. I don't think you would be running in the park, you slacker.
I think before you can tackle the topic of JOURNALISM, you must first agree about the definition of NEWS. Today, learning about what happened, that is, the cold hard facts of what occurred, can be had for free via newswires and the web itself, then cross checked over multiple sources as well as direct feeds such as twitter. This is what people used to call NEWS. It's now a commodity and the expectation is that it can be had for free. What is missing however, are the insights, additional information, back-story and CONTEXT for why any particular piece of NEWS could or will impact people. What is commonly called PERSPECTIVE. If some one could demonstrate a consistent additional value of providing that context and insight in a friendly, non-judgmental way, that would be of great appeal. That would be worth choosing to follow and give the most precious of all things today. ATTENTION.
If you only disseminated facts while reporting you would appear boring and lifeless. You do an excellent job of displaying your affection of the story or product. Offering your professional opinion while reporting factual information is still journalism. Giving up any sign of a bias would mean giving up your personality, which would be a tragedy in my opinion.
Keep up the great work
I have to preface this comment with the fact that I am just an average Joe that frequently screams into tunnels and that my only impact tends to be less revolution and more scaring of pigeons munching on some bread at the other end of the tunnels. ;o)
But personally--for what it's worth--I prefer to listen to media personalities that not only transmit the information that I've probably already heard through another source, but add a little bit of personal insight or analysis. Sure, I like to come to my own conclusions, but sometimes I either like to be helped along in that path or at least have the preliminary analysis done for me. From there I can decide whether or not I agree with your conclusions or if the topic is even interesting enough for me to research further. For me, that makes the journalism experience all the more worthwhile.
Isn't the trick of successful broadcasting to be able to express your voice, but not alienate the other half? I believe that the responsibility of the journalist is to express the truth to the public as they see it while challenging to the viewer/listener to come up with their own version of truth, which is going to be based on their own unique personal experience and previously heard information.
[...] Gays? Nick Lache. Posted 29 April 2008 - 01:31 PM. I like to hear the truth what peples think. ...The Value of Voice Natali Del ContePrivacy issues, identity theft, etc. present another area where one can voice strong opinions [...]
[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The comment's server IP (98.240.245.202) doesn't match the comment's URL host IP (74.52.116.226) and so is spam.
Comcast Bundle Deals...
Good post! The Value of Voice – Natali Del Conte was interesting an interesting post, comcast double play is an important consideration and I'll check out your blog again!...
[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The comment's server IP (67.18.49.2) doesn't match the comment's URL host IP (70.85.120.15) and so is spam.
i am professional visual artist, any chance you would like to use some of my pics? i think it would be neat for your site :-)
totally like your design! write me a email please in case you want to colaborate
Goes out and pay some identity, a status of friends. Can you produce positive effects to the friend, usually,