Northwestern student challenges LGBT media group’s claim of balance (Update – group responds)
“Balanced Journalism” is a “Trope”!
A Northwestern University campus media group is ready to form a new version of Journolist (i.e., the group of pundits, reporters, and progressives who coordinated the news to direct public opinion).
Charles Rollet of the Northwestern Chronicle unveils an organization funded to to fairly cover the news, but which presses specific agenda items instead.
The Medill Equal Media Project, directed by Northwestern’s branch of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association, is meant to cover LGBT communities and issues in the run-up to the presidential election. It is supposed to do so fairly and accurately, and is not intended to be an advocacy project.
Yet I cannot help but be skeptical of its objectivity, having read “[North Carolina] NC Equal Media,” a side blog of the Project which ran from Aug 21to 31, and covered two of the Project’s authors trip reporting in North Carolina.
I did not found it neutral, unsurprisingly. But a post titled “More than Both Sides” showed the project’s true colors more than any other. Read this paragraph from the blog (emphasis mine):
Surely, some may be wondering why we didn’t interview the homophobes and opponents of LGBT people. Isn’t it our responsibility as reporters to get all sides of the story? Not necessarily. The “both sides” argument is an old journalistic trope that needs to be crushed. We’re not trying to force a hackneyed dichotomy in our stories ….
The suppression of alternative points of view described in the NC Equal Media post is diametrically opposed to the stated objective of its parent organization. Camille Beredjick, the editor-in-chief of the Medill Equal Media Project, specifically described the following goal for the campus group: “To produce fair and accurate journalism that paints the full picture of what’s happening.”
The tone of the post is also of questionable journalistic merit.
In response to the criticism leveled at her “More than Both Sides” article by Rollet, author Julia Haskins writes:
We would never name-call or make anyone feel like their opinion isn’t respected.
“We would never name-call anyone”? Yet, her piece uses the derogatory term “homophobes” in discussing people who oppose specific progressive agenda items.
Yes, the North Carolina Media Group has truly crushed balanced reporting. Hopefully, the national group is paying attention.
Update: We received this email just after noon today:
We posted a response days ago to the piece Charles wrote questioning our objectivity. Your claim that we “press specific agenda items” is incorrect, and we’ve explained why. Check out our reasoning and perhaps you’ll reconsider. I’m happy to talk this over with you directly if you like.
http://equalmediaproject.com/#post_camille
All best,
Camille Beredjick
Editor-in-Chief, Medill Equal Media Project
Balanced Journalism: a “Trope” which “Must be Crushed” (The Northwestern Chronicle)
Comments
Can Camille Beredjick be so oblivious?
There are tangents like:
“Our project centers on the premise that LGBT people have a lot at stake this election season.”
We all have a lot at stake this election, that doesn’t justify the media favoring a particular side.
Given the fact that she intends to rebut the argument that her paper is involved in advocacy, not journalism, she surprisingly writes, “And to the LGBT people whose voices we seek to amplify, presidential support for marriage equality is undoubtedly a big step forward.”
She begins a descent into incoherency when she writes:
“Furthermore, we’d like to remind our readers that objectivity and sensitivity are not mutually exclusive. To us, objectivity means refusing to let our personal views interfere with how we report and what topics we cover.”
As for the non-mutual exclusivity of objectivity (defined in meager and non-credible terms above) and sensitivity, she writes, “sensitivity means respecting the true stories of our sources.”
It quickly becomes clear that her notion of “sensitivity” is total acceptance:
“If we encounter LGBT people who believe they are treated unfairly under a particular law, we feel it’s our right and responsibility to publish that truth…We don’t intend to provide a platform for those parties accused of discriminatory practices—we’re here to report on the people they’ve affected.”
It’s one thing to respect the sincerity of person’s grievances and to be sensitive to their feelings and quite another to declare their grievances legitimate and refuse the accused fair opportunity to respond.
In journalism, it is proper and normal practice to permit even blatant violators of law and decency some opportunity to give their side of things. The fact that the media group sees itself as providing a “platform” for a 3rd party, rather than reporting on 3rd parties, is most revealing.
She reiterates this inflated view of her group’s mission:
“We are not in the position to ignore this truth [of discrimination], or to deny their right to share it.”
The other side, she declares are “antagonistic bullies.” I can only guess she’s still pretending this isn’t necessarily her personal view? But at least she assures they won’t be labeled “hateful bigots and extremists”! She may be drawing some distinction between various opponents of the LGBT agenda (or “truth,” as Beredjick calls it). But given the whole of her response, I don’t know what the distinction could possibly be.
Essentially, she declares her group’s advocacy not advocacy because it is “truth.” Advocates generally feel that way about their causes.