Mind your language
Posted by tomfromthepost on February 18, 2008
…well we all get a bit wrapped up in our work from time to time. In my previous post I might have laid it on a bit strong at the cops, not that I disagree with any of what I said - personally at least.
But the problem is this isn’t just a personal blog. It’s got my job title up there at the top and my largest source of what I write about is taken from work, mainly because it’s the largest part of what I do with life.
So if I’ve got comments or opinions I want to make, then it’s not unlikely people are going to relate that to their view of the Birmingham Post.
I guess what I want to know is how much do people connect a blog with a writer, the subject, and the job that writer does?
And what’s the best place - if anywhere - for a reporter to record their own personal opinions on a topic?
A while back I was talking to a friend who said she wished she’d thought to start blogging anonymously so she didn’t have to worry about what she’d said. And it’s a difficult one, because our online presence means more about us is being exposed to the world every day.
I remember being horrified the first time a work contact added me on Facebook because it was a space that was previously just about my social life. But unfortunately it’s almost impossible to keep work and life separate, especially with social media and the like making both our social and work lives constantly accessible from the outside. There’s no more taking the phone off the hook and declaring yourself away for the weekend.
So maybe I’ll think more in the future about what I say online - or how I say it.
February 18, 2008 at 7:56 pm
I have commented before that I believe “objective” journalism doesn’t exist. We all have points of view and journalists are no different.
The word “objective” is sometimes used as a way to silence journalists. I have much more admiration from a journalist who writes and speaks from the heart in a subject that he or she truly believes in than one who hides behind a veil of objectivity as way of not telling people what is happening.
I may disagree with the point of view or reasoning behind the words but I would defend the right for the person to say it.
The journalists that I most admire are the ones with heart and passion and a genuine desire to filter out the bullshit and tell people about the world they live in without fear of upsetting the “moral majority” viz those who have something to lose by the facts being told.
February 18, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Well said. But I think there’s a difference between objectivity and impartiality. If you get too carried away, it starts to look like you’ve got a personal agenda or axe to grind, which then makes people wonder how that affects what’s presented as factual information.
The other problem is pure realpolitik. If you rely on cooperation to operate normally you can’t always just turn round and bite the hand that feeds you, even if they really deserve it. Sad but true. The challenge is to find a balance between saying what you think, and having access to the things you critices (vital if you want reportage to be informed), which I suppose is what I’m looking for.
February 19, 2008 at 10:40 pm
There is certainly a desire for reporters/journalists/presenters to become the news and not merely report it.
The Humphreys and Paxman of the world may believe that they are trying to get at the “truth” but all they are doing is propogating the belief that debate is not about reasoning and well-informed conversation but who can shout and impose one’s will the most.
Which supports what you said about being seen to having an axe to grind. I think that debate is dead. The treatment of Rowan Williams is a prime example. Hysteria and aggression is now presented as debate.