SIMPLY PRESENTING the facts we are told has proven not to work in recent years.
The war in Iraq is the ultimate proof. Whether or not you agree with the military action, the reason for entering the war - the weapons of mass destruction - turned out to be a giant miscalculation. And American journalists helped sell the war to the public by simply reporting government claims.
The difficulty of remaining neutral leaves journalists in an awkward situation - regurgitating information makes us look weak and taking a stance makes us look biased.
The case of the Jena 6 again tests our abilities. Should we be fighting against the perceived injustices or do we report the facts we are told?
The greater problem is that the truth is rather elusive. How can we be certain that the information people tell journalists isn't already tainted by bias?
In cases like the Jena 6, how do we serve the public without overstepping our boundaries?
Should objectivity be scrapped as an antiquated notion?
NEW: Philadelphia Weekly columnist Kia Gregory on the Jena 6 and the responsibility of humanity.
1 year ago