Saturday, 7 July 2012

Journalism and the murder of truth



By Aliyu Musa

In the event of the outbreak of a war, it is often assumed that the first victim is truth. Lynch and Galtung, however, argue that it is not. Rather peace is, while truth comes next to it. This does not in any way undermine the enormity or seriousness of the compromise of truth in a crisis situation.

When peace is murdered, endless lies are told to justify this act – hence truth is murdered time and again. This explains why, although truth is the second victim, its murder is a major tragedy. It is more so if one considers how propaganda is callously employed by conscripting the media to play the role of cheerleaders and disseminators of falsehood.

America’s ‘war on terror’, the invasion of Iraq in particular, led to the coinage of the term ‘embedded reporting’. An embedded journalist is one that is attached (actually submerged) to a military unit during an armed conflict and constrained to reporting from the perspective agreed by the military. In other words an embedded reporter willingly submits to censorship and, therefore, trades off professional ethics and, of course, truth.

The need to subject the media to such a direct manipulation follows previous unfavourable experiences. In the wars in the former Federation of Yugoslavia, for instance, US forces realised they could win the real battles and still lose the media war. To get round this problem, they opted to craftily develop some form of relationship with the media in which unfavourable stories were hushed.

Embedded reporting, like Yellow Journalism, encourages economisation of truth and has played a leading role in misinforming the American public. It is therefore not surprising that today many Americans still do not know that Iraq under Saddam Hussein never had weapons of mass destruction and Hussein was not in any way involved in the 9/11 attacks on the US.

In our backyard, here in Nigeria, one will be unnecessarily exaggerating to claim that embedded journalism is practised in the form explained in this piece. But it does not mean the media are not facing pressures that compel them to compromise ethics. Often a number of factors intertwine to ensure they mortgage truth. Some of these, like corruption, proprietors’ interests, interpretation and poor welfare package, will be explained shortly.

A couple of years ago I was in Nigeria to conduct a field study. In the survey I interacted with quite a few respondents who thought corruption was a major setback to journalism profession in the country. Yet their accounts suggested corruption on both sides was to blame. Some employers hardly pay wages and, directly or indirectly, encourage fraud including allowing their papers to be used to plant fabricated stories. And journalists, because they are hardly paid the right wages, do not mind acting as a conduit for fraudulent journalistic processes.

Often, stories about similar events contradict each other not because the information differs but because in each media organisation the likelihood of manipulating figures considerably varies. While the more credible ones work hard to guard their credibility some do not have any qualms about implausible practices.

Doctoring casualty figures in violent crises or disasters is commonplace. A content review of reports in some national newspapers during a violent crisis once brought home the tragic reality in this unabashed slay of truth than I ever imagined. A response to my query on this revealed how the morning after a day of bloodbath, one of the state offices of the Nigeria Union Journalists was invaded by government officials fully armed with bags of money with which they easily persuaded journalists to downplay casualty figures. And with money as incentive ethics were compromised and, once again, truth hurriedly sent to the gallows.

Like America’s Yellow Journalism where excessive competition was put ahead of objectivity there were occasions in Nigeria when news reports were tailored to suit proprietors’ interests or bids to boost sales. This explains why banner headlines that directly contrast the actual story are sometimes deliberately used. Yet, a credible editor would worry about the quality of such reports and their impacts on their editing credibility in spite of a ‘piper payer’s seeming overbearing influence.

Interpretation is incongruent to detachment. And detachment is vital for an objective journalistic practice. A reporter that relies on his own interpretation of events or statements is more likely to be biased than one who doesn’t. Such a reporter is highly likely to misinform their audience/readers.

Late last year, for example, the Sheikh Ahmed Lemu panel on the violence that saluted the April 2011 presidential election turned in its report, which was subjected to some reporters’/editors’ own interpretation. Despite a rescue attempt by the Sheikh through the BBC Hausa service, truth has long been butchered that no rescue effort can resuscitate it as far as the matter is concerned.

Asked why they rely on agency reports or some eyewitness accounts that might be factual or outrightly inaccurate, a journalist responded by lamenting that although violence might be happening a few miles from where they were, going there to get a firsthand account was not a risk they could willingly take because there’s no welfare package that encourages such risk.

Most reports about crises in the country often appear to be more factually reported by foreign news agencies, from which the local media copy. Sometimes, like embedded reporters, local reporters rely solely on press releases by security agencies or government image makers to determine casualty figures. That is why several versions of casualty figures continue to surface long after the sounds of weapons have died down.

News reports on the current campaign of bombings and violence in some parts of the North are an example of how not to report conflict. One moment a report claims that a certain number of insurgents has been either captured or killed, the next moment, another report comes out to contradict either the number or the entire report. And while often the military and police claim victory, the sect dispels such claims as a rumour.

But only the media, with the advantage of neutrality, can actually confirm who is winning or losing and what the actual casualty figures are. Perhaps they might need to learn from Lynch and Galtung’s suggestion that “objectivity, balance and truth are like motherhood and apple pie.” Objectivity is, thus, a prerequisite for effective, ethical practice and is complemented by balance and truth.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Newer Post Older Post Home
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)