This week I had the opportunity to sit in on a lecture by Millca Pesic the Executive Director of the Media Diversity Institute. Media Diversity is an institute that works internationally to encourage responsible media coverage of diversity. ‘It aims to prevent the media from intentionally or unintentionally spreading prejudice, intolerance and hatred which can lead to social tensions, disputes and violent conflict’ (Media Diversity Institute, 2014)

One of the themes that was raised in the lecture was sensitivity in reporting. Milica and MDI believe that as well as the journalism ethics of reporting in a fair, accurate and balanced way, stories must also be inclusive and sensitive. This brings up all sorts of issues surrounding sensitivity in journalism with the underlying question being, is it possible to be objective when reporting sensitively.

MDI believe that a lack of sensitivity in journalism can cause social tensions and even violence but how realistic is the aim to add sensitivity to the already standing list of journalism ethics. Milica has resigned from a job to stick to her morals and refuse to report in certain ways, most journalists would refuse to report something untrue, but something insensitive is more of a stretch.

There is a place for sensitive journalism and it is being proposed by MDI that journalists need to be more responsible for what they write and the consequences. Sensitive journalism is perhaps more politically correct and aimed at getting around problems like writing to type. A good example of a case where sensitive journalism would be a pro was in the 1970′s coverage of muggings that left young black males racial stereotyped as dangerous. Sensitive journalism would put and end to situations like these.

There is already a list of differing reporting practices when covering a conflict, called conflict sensitive journalism. This calls for amongst other things to report just the facts avoiding adjectives and certain types of language. It’s difficult to be sensitive in conflict stories, balanced stories report both sides of a conflict, this could seem insensitive to both sides.

In extreme situations the media do make a decision to be sensitive on mass, one such example is the recent ISIL beheadings videos. The press vowed to not show any of the footage of the actual beheadings of the hostages taken earlier this year. This opens the floor to debates about whether or not the news has been edited by this sensitivity, though in these intense situations it is generally agreed that sensitivity should be practiced.

When presented with extreme acts of violence in a conflict situation it may be very easy for the media, journalism and the public at large to get on board with the MDI’s code of ethics but how does this translate to everyday journalism and the stories that fill our newspapers and bulletins. The MDI’s version of sensitivity extends to the people that are being reported on and their feelings at being a part of the story.

When we report we turn people in the stories into subjects that can be reported on objectively. Though its safe to say that many of those subjects would not necessarily agree with what is reported about them or how they are portrayed in a story or article. By the MDI’s definition of sensitivity stories must also be sensitive to the people in them, this gives a strange kind of view that a person must approve of the story they are in, surely this is ridiculous.

A journalists first responsibility is the public good, in my opinion it is not possible to serve the public good and be sensitive to everyone involved in a story at the same time. Adding sensitivity to the list of journalism ethics is an impediment to fair and balanced reporting, it’s just not possible to reach objectivity under these conditions.

This practice shifts the focus of journalism to the subjects of that journalism and not the people reading it. In life it is impossible to please everybody as it would be every subject within a story; an impossible idea. Where does it leave journalism, in the hands of the reported, changing stories to have a more sensitive tone towards them. This is a compromise that in my view would compromise journalism itself.

References

Media-diversity.org, (2014). Home. [online] Available at: http://www.media-diversity.org/en/ [Accessed 28 Nov. 2014].