Let’s face facts

We have taken a beating this week, haven’t we? By “we,” I’m referring to me  and those of my kind— journalists. We’ve been called reckless, irresponsible and much, much worse. Truth be told, I suspect that a few of us have spent a couple of days on the defensive, trying our best to distance ourselves from “that sort of sensational journalism,” which led a member of our generally already much maligned trade to abandon some, if not most of the basic tenets of that trade and produce a story that was more fiction than fact. We’ve probably been, back to the ropes, loudly reassuring anyone who’s cared to listen to us that unlike that man, we are always quite professional; that unlike him, we never forget to check our facts; that we understand the difference between what someone says is true and what is actually true. Blah, blah, blah.

I’m not so sure that we, and by “we,” I mean any journalist, should have been so quick though, to think or say lately, “Well that’s him, definitely not me.” Perhaps this is just the moment for some professional reflection, for us to ask, “But do we really always do our utmost to get it right? Are we as truly capable as we profess to be? Or are we not frequently lazy, careless, if not carefree?” If we are honest we will conclude that some introspection is due, if it is not overdue. For example, we might acknowledge that lately our inattention toward our profession is evident in our English, which is regularly sloppy, if not shocking and which we take no pains to better. Don’t many of us only too often have a tendency to leave the reader, viewer or listener with quite a few unanswered questions or don’t we neglect to conduct research before we write an article or go on air? What about our tacit acceptance of what “big” people tell us, our fear of asking them tough questions?

Yet others of us can be quite lackadaisical with facts. The correct spelling of names, for example, is not our concern. If we don’t get it right today, we’ll get it right tomorrow is our attitude as we forget the public’s dependence on us to give them accurate reports everyday. Many of us err in other ways. We often enough do not sufficiently educate ourselves in those sectors of media in which we work or about the beats we are assigned to cover. Never mind reflecting on ethical, social, philosophical issues concerning our profession, or our seeking to understand concepts such as defamation, balanced reporting, privacy and fair comment. We don’t have time for such intangibles. Our excuse: we’re too busy dealing with “reality.”

We can be unprofessional in other ways, too. I often wonder if we are conscious of how amateurish we look when we run our annual lap around the Christmas media appreciation party circuit. Simply the name of these fetes, thrown principally by big companies, is suspect, indeed offensive and as such reason enough for us to decline the many invitations to go. We do not stop to ask what we have done to make these businesses feel so appreciative of us. Could it be that they are grateful to us because we have been soft in our reporting of them because after the fete last year, to which we went purportedly to make contacts for the sake of our trade, we’ve felt a sense of debt this year? All that ham, rum and whisky — the real reason we attend the parties — does have a price and the better the quality of the ham, rum and whisky the steeper that cost. So, when the call comes asking for that favour, we know it’s time to pay for the food and grog, which we ate and drank without answering the question why someone would dip into his pocket just for us.

And what of those gifts that we so love to get? Many foreign media houses prohibit their employees from accepting the slightest of offerings from individuals or companies, even a pen, because management has acknowledged that there is no truer saying than the one about free lunches and that these don’t exist.  Never have. Nevertheless, for many of us, our journalistic worth is measured by counting the number of gifts or free tickets we receive annually. We are hurt if we see our colleagues getting a basket at Christmas and we haven’t received one. It means we aren’t known. We don’t realise that in this way, we are allowing business to decide our worth, to determine who’s who in the media when already business exerts enough influence over the “cultural industries” because of our dependence of advertising dollars.

Another glaring example of our lack of professionalism lies in our increasing acceptance lately of awards and prizes from people and firms who do not explain on what basis they have arrived at their results, or what qualifies them to choose best this or that in any category of media and  again, and most importantly, why they feel the need to award the media. Yet we flock to these affairs and we grab the gifts and trophies, hold them up,  as if to say, “See I’m important.”

Aren’t we thus, selling ourselves  extremely cheap? We never ask, “But why is this particular individual or  company giving me this? What does he, or what do they, hope to gain in  return?” Because there is always an “in return” even if we are too naive, too greedy, or too flattered to spot it. I think therefore that it is fair comment to note that we really aren’t as rigorous in adhering to established standards as regularly as we think we are or as we should be and by “we,” I mean not just one reporter who dealt a severe blow to his own credibility last week, but all of us in this business. suz@itrini.com