Coverage of Sarah Palin: An Example of Neutrality versus Transparency

TrackBacks (0) Comments (0)
I can't help bring up Sarah Palin when discussing transparent versus neutral journalism.

I think one particularly interesting story that appeared on Gawker on the night of Palin's speech at the Republican National Convention is this one, in which Reuter's published a story on Palin's speech before it actually happened.  I clicked on the link in the story before the speech took place and Reuter's did, in fact, publish the story before the event. This story, tagged by author Ryan Tate as "Journalismism," writes, "Presumably, Reuters's coverage of the forthcoming Republican convention address by Sarah Palin is based on a pre-distributed written version of the speech, and that's why the report at left was posted at least an hour ago. But shouldn't the future tense be employed, or a disclaimer be included, given that the speech hasn't, you know, occurred yet?"


Sarah Palin Alaska from Patriot Room.JPG
I think Tate brings up an important issue as a type of demand for transparency. This similar issue was brought up on Thursday, August 28, when USC Annenberg hosted "Convention Watch: Obama Presidential Nomination Acceptance Speech." Before the acceptance speech, journalism school director Geneva Overholser gave a few words about what she saw taking place in the field of journalism. I don't remember her exact words, but I remember her mentioning that in the past, reporters would generally have their stories finished before the candidate actually spoke, minus a few changes here and there, based on these pre-distributed speech transcripts. However, she mentioned that with everything going on in the field of journalism today, this type of reporting could no longer pass.
 
One of the reasons I found this particular story on Gawker so interesting is because it specifically addressed these issues. The Reuter's author cannot possibly write a neutral, balanced piece reviewing Palin's speech if the story is written before the speech has even taken place. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why it was taken off the site.

It seems as though a general rule of thumb when deciding if journalism is neutral or transparent is that the journalist will probably let you know that he is being transparent by telling you so. One example I can think of is "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart," in which host Jon Stewart does not hesitate to remind you that his show is a comedy show and is not designed to serve as a balanced news source. A recent episode of Jon Stewart's show discussing Sarah Palin can be seen below.
  

In this episode, Stewart does not only hesitate to give you his opinion, but he runs through certain Fox News correspondent Karl Rove's contradicting coverage of Sarah Palin versus Hilary Clinton. Whenever a journalist or news station claims to be "fair and balanced," as does Fox news, a warning flag goes up for me.


[Image courtesy of Huffingtonpost.com]

I'm not saying that neutral journalism isn't possible, but in more cases than not, there is a certain amount of bias, baggage, or angle that the journalist or news program is taking towards the story. This is especially the case in news stories now covering the upcoming election. But, that's just my opinion.

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Coverage of Sarah Palin: An Example of Neutrality versus Transparency.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blogs.uscannenberg.org/cgi-bin/mtcom/mt-tb.cgi/267

Leave a comment