The hypocrisy of journalism and the hired sycophant

| by Dr. Ruwantissa Abeyratne

(October 01, Montreal, Sri Lanka Guardian) Impartial and effective journalism is the lifeblood of a democratic society which serves as a driver of social consciousness in that society The value of the media was amply demonstrated by one instance when the programme 60 minutes - shown in North America on the station CBS on 8 January 2005 - brought to bear the social prejudices and warped values of one segment of American society against another. CBS, an American enterprise, had no compunction in exposing the authorities of the city of Brent in the US, separated by a bridge from New Orleans which was badly affected by Hurricane Katrina in September 2005 which almost completely decimated the city of New Orleans by killing 1100 and rendering thousands homeless, hungry, diseased and destitute. Brent, the city across the bridge, on which thousands of desperate new Orleans residents attempted to cross to get to shelter and assistance refused to admit the refugees into their territory. Through skilful journalism, the media gave the viewer an exposé of the mindset of the authorities who refused to help the refugees. Such insight is only possible through impartial journalism and the service rendered by the prudent journalist is invaluable.

Objectivity in journalism personifies a neutral point of view and requires that one does not personally take a point of view. Balanced reporting should represent all sides of the story without personal observation or conjecture.

Although there is sycophantism in the Western media, for the most part much of the North American Press, to cite the Montreal Gazette; the Toronto Globe and Mail; the New York Times and the International Herald Tribune as some examples, embolden themselves to present both the positive and negative sides of the establishment, relying on their unquestioned and unthreatened independence. The Montreal Gazette which is my regular read has almost daily criticisms of the government, the Prime Minister and his Cabinet and contains no sycophantic diatribe whatsoever of ministering angels who run the government.

Objectivity in journalism personifies a neutral point of view and requires that one does not personally take a point of view. Balanced reporting should represent all sides of the story without personal observation or conjecture. By contrast, it is possible to be philosophically objective in presenting or describing a controversial or novel point of view. Journalistic professionalism essentially calls for objectivity characterized by fairness, disinterestedness, factuality, and non-partisanship.

Objectivity in reportage is also associated with newsgathering and reporting that emphasizes eyewitness accounts of events, corroboration of facts with multiple sources and balance. It also attributes an institutional role for journalists as a fourth estate - a body that stays independent from government and large interest groups. The traditional bottom line has been that journalists have to be neutral and just report the news, which helps the newspaper or station they represent in attracting business by way of advertisements on the basis that the journalism offered did not take sides and therefore did not harm the interests of the advertisers.

One of the most important features of virtuous journalism is objectivity which is frequently held to be essential to proper journalism. A credible journalist of integrity will always be objective and present facts as they stand, a quality which has had disastrous consequences. In the final analysis, the real worth of a journalists is in the manner in which a report is published. Although it is objectivity that is most critical to a journalist, objectivity and the journalist’s own perception of it may determine his own fate at the hands of the profession and its exigencies. While sociologist Michael Schudson argues that "the belief in objectivity is a faith in 'facts,' a distrust in 'values,' and a commitment to their segregation”, an objective story is typically considered to be one that steers a middle path between two poles of political rhetoric. The tenets of objectivity are violated to the degree to which the story appears to favour one pole over the other.

Sipho Masombuka-Sowetan of Pretoria, South Africa has written: “A good journalist is someone whose goal is to inform and not to sensationalise. Impeccable integrity, analytical thinking and strong news sense makes a good journalist great. An article written by a good journalist is packed with informative, factful and fair paragraphs. A good journalist is also someone who is patient and impatient at the same time. Keen interest in uninteresting events sometimes yield interesting articles as well. So a good journalist turns boring news event into an interesting feature piece”.

Stieg Larrson’s bestselling novel “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo” is about a crusading journalist who eschews the sycophantic reporting style of his peers and instead prefers to expose corruption in industry. Undoubtedly, the reader loves him.

Conversely, there is hypocrisy and sycophancy in journalism. Hypocrisy is defined as the state of pretending to have beliefs, opinions, virtues, ideals, thoughts, feelings, qualities, or standards that one does not actually have. Hypocrisy involves the deception of others and is thus a kind of lie. A sycophant is defined as “a servile self-seeker who attempts to win favour by flattering influential people”. Therefore the two terms “hypocrisy” and “sycophant” when combined give a dangerous cocktail of a person who lies and deceives those who trust him so that he can curry favour by flattering those in power.

A sycophantic journalist reports in an essentially tendentious manner for his own gain and defies all acceptable norms of human decency. He remains in his profession devoid of the core principles of truthfulness, honesty, fairness and non partisanship. He would not publish anything that is even mildly critical of his employer’s politics or contains suggestions for improvement that could expose the deficiencies of the government in power.

The consequences are significant. The wise refuse to buy newspapers replete with sycophantic reports of the government. Gradually, even the unwise get bored with reports of monotonous regularity which boast of continuing prosperity in a country riddled with poverty. Above all, the genuine politician in the ruling Party who sincerely and honestly wants to serve the people is tarred with the same brush.

The solution? A code of ethics for journalists that is justiciable (questionable in a court of law). The breach of such a code, if proven on a balance of probability should be punishable at law. The Society of Professional Journalists has a code which seeks to test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. The Society considers that deliberate distortion is never permissible.

The journalist is required to diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing and identify

sources whenever feasible. The overriding driver is that the public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability.

The prudent journalist is required to make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. He should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context. The Code is based on the premise that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. Therefore the journalist must seek the truth and provide a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. A conscientious journalist serves the public with thoroughness and honesty. The journalist must never compromise his credibility by sacrificing his professional integrity. Ethical conduct should be the cornerstone of the profession of journalism.

Although some countries may have a code of ethics for journalists, I would like to see such a code having a provision that says: “no person should indulge in sycophantic journalism that would mislead and delude the public”. Often, it is not the State that is at fault. It is the sycophant who attempts to brown nose his bosses and gain favours.