The paper describes ethical issues involved in the work of a TV journalist. The author – an experienced editor and producer of TV programs – diagnoses the. etyka dziennikarska zadania mediów: role jakie powinny pełnić media epołeczeńetwie reguluje prawo prasowe. wolność to eytuacja kiedy władza. Title, Etyka dziennikarska. Author, Jan Pleszczyński. Publisher, Difin, ISBN, , Length, pages. Export Citation, BiBTeX.
|Published (Last):||22 July 2009|
|PDF File Size:||18.84 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||6.7 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
A more proactive journalism, a journalism with more self-understanding of dziennkkarska across time and space, a journalism that is more transparent and more amenable to reflection from the outside — all of these are pre-conditions for journalism to work more effectively in the public interest.
Dziennikarz Niezależny? Etyka dziennikarska w praktyce
Proactively fielding developments in the larger environment so as to delay, blunt or even alter the landing of such blows is instrumental for securing a form of journalism that dzisnnikarska work more effectively in the public interest.
And yet we do not study and teach journalism in a way that reflects this variegated and simultaneous dziennikarskx. Journalists themselves have not been receptive to the attempts to microscopically examine what they do, despite the fact that their ground conditions are rapidly changing.
What does this mean for journalism? This means pulling in a whole host of contextual variables that complicate the space of news, not only by compressing it into reactivity: Technically, journalists face new challenges from the blogosphere and other venues, which make the accomplishment of newswork tenuous. It means not adapting to change, as Jeff Jarvis would have it, but riding the wave of change as part of its mantra for being. Disciplines come to play in this regard among journalism scholars, where historians, sociologists, political scientists, linguists and cultural analysts all remain in isolated pockets from each other, but we need to mention too how separated are our curricular sequences by medium.
This has produced stubborn enclaves not only across each of the three populations but within them as well.
Etyka dziennikarska by Olek Sikorski on Prezi
Nor is there any one unitary vision of journalism to be found. It offers the tools through which to stead journalism against political attacks which lack historical understanding, to help it better contextualize commercial onslaughts, to offset the hysteria of moral panics which see new technological developments as changing old relationships between young and old or private and public.
A second overused interpretive strategy relates to how much our understanding of news has been influenced by organizational logic, where work becomes routinized and controllable, not only for journalists but for academics too. In the US, both mainstream newspapers and broadcast news other than the morning shows are losing their publics, while a growth in the ethnic press, the alternative press, in cable news, and in alternative sites like late night television comedy, blogs and other online sites particularly among the young suggests that the change in journalism is rapid and widespread.
Is the online explosion so very different from the expansion into radio in the s? Though news practice takes on unique shape in the various regions in which it is practiced, the dziennikarwka majority of scholarship still focuses on journalism in its U. History relentlessly repeats itself: Journalists are not responsible for the world, but journalism scholars are instrumental to enabling a better connection between journalists and their world.
Too much of our public conversations ride on the latest media failing, deficiency or outrage. Finally, what does any of this suggest for the public interest?
Inquiry, then, is not just a cognitive act but dizennikarska social one too. They live in an environment in which economic imperatives and bottom-line pressures force the news to act as a for-profit enterprise, and so journalists are diversified, multi-tasking and multi-skilling in ways that previous generations would not recognize.
They include how we think about journalism, where we might have gone wrong in its study and teaching, what journalism scholarship can tell us about journalism that it has not offered so far, and how can that exchange better serve the public interest. In real dzienhikarska this calls for an increased orientation on the part of journalists dizennikarska other forces in the public sphere, for an increased degree of transparency about how journalists work, and for an increased recognition that others may be able to critique journalism better than journalists for the very reason that they look at journalism rtyka its margins.
Are there easy answers to financial meltdown, global warming, disease? Each of these three points orient backward rather than forward, paralleling in scholarship the reactivity we see emerging so acutely in journalists themselves.
But we can only do so if we reinvigorate our scholarly lenses enough to offer journalists new ways of regarding their role in servicing the public interest. Not as a responsive reactive mode but as a proactive and anticipatory understanding of the multiple spatial and temporal forces that exist in various symbiotic relationships with the news.
This means we engage with what is up close without taking account of variance introduced at the margins of our inquiry. We need to help foster understanding of its trappings in ways that help both journalism and the public interest thrive — each on their own terms and together.
In servicing the public interest by better connecting journalism scholarship and journalism, we hearken back to something John Dewey said long ago about education: Many of the starting points, end points and arguments connecting them feel familiar even when they are first broached. While journalists tend to inhabit the news beat, the news organization, or, if you will, the newsroom whatever we mean by that termscholars dzienniarska well-poised to remind them to keep abreast of other institutional, social, cultural, political, technological and economic impulses awash in their environment.
The idea of interpretive communities, originally suggested by Stanley Fish and developed in my own work and that of others, helps us situate groups as collectives using shared interpretative strategies that are integral to the knowledge that results. Journalism is too important to be reactive. What would be left in the end, and how much of it would we recognize? Underlying the ability to speak about journalism, then, are tensions about who can mobilize the right to speak over others.
Although journalism has been around for as long as publics have needed mediated information about the larger world, journalism itself experiences a schizophrenic existence with the world. On the one hand, journalism stretches in various forms across all of the ways in which we come together as a collective. Longstanding members of the profession have maintained durable bonds that exclude multiple kinds of newcomers — such as satiricists or bloggers. We continue to treat multi-platform stories and multi-media journalism as if they are curiosities rather than evolutionary necessities.
In the United States, for instance, journalism educators still apply demarcations between print and television in our journalism education trajectory, and the AEJMC — the largest journalism association for educators and scholars — boasts similar divisions. Does journalism not lie somewhere in between? In the United States, much talk has recently targeted the idea that the academy can pick up and correct the ills wrought by corporate ownership of newspapers.
These periods of temporal pregnancy echo elsewhere in the world too — we can think of the near simultaneous emergence of development journalism and asian values journalism in the s as answers to the deficiencies of models suggested by the global north. Implicit here is the fact that journalists need to listen more to academics and minimize their sensitivity to criticisms that academics wield.
And so the defining feature of journalism has faded to the background of what is necessary to know. Second, we have largely sidestepped the craft of journalism. In other words, what we think has a predetermined shape and life-line, which privileges community, solidarity and power. What this means is that because journalists, journalism educators and journalism scholars function within the boundaries and confines of their own multiple interpretive communities, journalism never finds its own voice in serving the public interest.
I think the message is a simple one: First, our scholarly and pedagogic work has narrowed the varieties of news still primarily defining it in ways that drive a specific form of hard news over other alternatives.
Is the narrative journalism of today so very different from the literary experiments of Mark Twain? Finally, we have underplayed the diverse global forms of journalism.
I note here the now defunct Freedom Forum Center for Media Studies at Columbia University, which provided just such an opportunity to better understand the other side. Each development can and should be explained by looking beyond the here moments targeted dziennukarska journalism, and it is our responsibility to help journalists recognize them as relevant.
And what is journalism for — is its function to only provide information or to more creatively meld community and public citizenship?