Of Untruths and Compromises in Journalism

The responsibility of a journalist to be as accurate as possible when reporting events can be well appreciated vis-à-vis a literary-cum-mathematical logic of Truth as expounded by a gentleman-journalist known as Craig Saila.

Using Webster’s dictionary definition of truth, that is, “body of real things, events, and facts,” as a premise, Saila says if x represents ‘Fact 1,’ and y, ‘Fact 2,’ then the dictionary definition would be: things + events + x + y = truth. If the variables including x and y are valued at 1, truth would equal 4. However, if ‘Fact 2,’ or y, emanated from a slightly different source, and as such had the value of 0.974, truth would equal 3.974 (mind you, no longer 4).

What this means therefore is that the more facts that are added to the equation, the greater the depth that will exist in the value of truth. Meanwhile any inaccuracies emerging from the collection of the facts, or from within the facts themselves, will greatly alter the end value of truth. According to James Long, Ph.D, the most common falsehood propagated by journalists is a falsehood of omission, where a critical fact is left out of the story and the readers/viewers are left to slot in the details from their imagination.

The outcome is a story that is given a whole new and false interpretation. And this reminds me of “Creed or Chaos,” a collection of Dorothy Sayers’ essays, which, on page 89, posits that, “To foment grievance and to set men at variance is the trade by which agitators thrive and journalists make money. A dogfight, a brawl, or a war is always news; if news of that kind is lacking, it pays well to contrive it.”

There is a fundamental limitation in journalism that gets me mixed up most times: it is what I call the commercial motive. Sometime this year, I wrote a very objective article, which I had expected one of our dailies to publish. To my surprise, I learnt from my contact, that it could not be published because the “powerful” advertiser on whom I wrote had been criticized enough by the public for its initial misdemeanor. I was chagrined by the fact that media properties, which usually bond media and their audiences, are now being surrendered by timid editors and publishers to the caprices of those who pay the bills.

For Belinda Anderson, a passionate South African journalist, it is important that journalists maintain their stand otherwise they will lose their credibility and then everything else. For example, in her organization, stories are written for their merits and demerits especially when they affect the public good, not caring which advertiser’s ox is gored in the process. I wonder how we will be able to maintain our editorial integrity if we are on the pay-roll of advertisers and their communication agents. It even gets murkier when we allow our reporters to be sponsored on local and foreign trips or allowed to be given “professional” awards by these same organizations or their affiliates.

How, for the life of me, does anyone expect us to publish any negative (yet objective) article about such organizations? Meanwhile we are adept at hypothesizing before all of the facts about vulnerable people are established. It might interest us that the 1932 Pulitzer Prize was won by a journalist that claimed that the Soviet farm collectivization scheme was successful and the people being tried for anti- Soviet activities were really guilty. The evidence and confessions, while the trials lasted revealed that the scheme actually transformed the country from a food exporting nation to one saddled with several dozens of millions of deaths from starvation.

It beats my imagination that we still have amongst us presumably educated, professional colleagues who are ever willing and able (and, perhaps, financially motivated) to disparage others. Lately, my attention was called to a piece on our advertising industry, which made me wonder where, on planet earth, most newspaper organizations hire their staff. It is most unprofessional to concentrate almost exclusively on one side of an issue (of which the piece was largely guilty). Doing so is synonymous with an inaccurate and fraudulent view of what the true situation is and this prevents viewers/ readers from forming informed and valid opinions.

Worse still, the piece was so full of generalizations and ignorant assumptions that I could only conclude that it was yet another effort in mediocre reporting. I believe that all sides must be presented in a balanced manner, while our stories should be absolutely objective and fair. Speaking with so-called “expert” sources without hearing from the people that are being written about only confirms the pitiable level to which our journalism has fallen. And we go ahead to make uncomplimentary conclusions, which, unbelievably, are posted on the Internet! Is this the nadir of our beloved journalism?

I hope that this is not a sign of the future of Nigerian media. That journalists wield so much influence on society, is the reason I strongly recommend that journalism should be a stand- alone course offered by a select number of universities and restricted to only people who already have a bachelor’s degree in some other field. In addition, the “new” improved journalist will be one of the highest- paid in Nigeria. Journalists should indulge in research and display excellent communication skills.

Since journalists owe society the duty of reporting issues and events accurately without bias, retractions should quickly be made when it is obvious that an error has been committed. We should note that the freedom of the press carries with it an obligation to be accurate, fair, balanced and honest. Long live Journalism!