Objectivity of journalists and psychological factors in war coverage

Dr. Ruwantissa ABEYRATNE

This article poses the question whether, in the face of war, journalists covering hot spots could remain objective without being personally involved in the stories they cover. It also addresses the issue as to what effect such coverage would have on the journalist.

Should the world insist that a journalist remain objective at all costs? David Leon of the BBC has recently expressed the view that encouraging reporters to become emotionally involved in the stories they cover is a worrying new trend.

Objectivity is the hallmark of journalism and is not relegated solely to the coverage of war. Modern complexity in political practice and social exigency seemingly demand that journalism become a more sensationalized and flamboyant profession.

As the outgoing British Prime Minister Tony Blair is reported to have said in his speech on 12 June 2007, there are increasing commercial, technological and political pressures that make reflective and original journalism harder.

He described it as a problem of a lack of editorial diversity. Mr. Blair went on to say that in the newsroom context this can be reinforced by media cultures which tend to reward efficiency and conformity rather than innovation and reflection, and that in the wider political culture there is a similar unthinking cosiness.

The same view has been expressed by Richard Tait, one of the twelve BBC trustees, when he said that new technologies and changes in society have brought to bear a change of direction in the profession of journalism which veers from the traditional divide of left versus right.

Tait offered the eminently sensible proposition that, in order to safeguard impartiality of the profession in the 21st century, a newsroom must endeavour to provide the full breadth of views in all their complexities so that the reader or audience is offered a complete picture of the situation and they can make up their own minds.

This trend of personalising the journalistic profession may have its own dimension of inevitability in that journalists, being human, could always be emotionally affected by the stories they cover.

War journalists, who are juggernauts of courage in the public’s consciousness as they appear calm against a backdrop of carnage and terror, are often depleted and broken when the emotionality and physicality associated with covering a war zone leaves them drained.

Therefore it might not be surprising that battle jacketed and helmeted reporters strutting around tanks and buildings billowing smoke could well be crouching in their beds at night with their own nightmares.

However, in the public’s eye, the journalist is immune from injury, typifying the comment of the fictional character Captain Nemo, Commander of the Nautilus in Jules Verne’s Mysterious Island when he met a journalist on his ship: “I know you...you specialize in war news. You supply the ink and the soldiers supply the blood”.

Objectivity

Objectivity in journalism personifies a neutral point of view and requires that one does not personally take a point of view. Balanced reporting should represent all sides of the story without personal observation or conjecture.

By contrast, it is possible to be philosophically objective in presenting or describing a controversial or novel point of view. Journalistic professionalism essentially calls for objectivity characterized by fairness, disinterestedness, factuality, and non-partisanship.

Objectivity in reportage is also associated with news gathering and reporting that emphasizes eyewitness accounts of events, corroboration of facts with multiple sources and balance.

It also attributes an institutional role for journalists as a fourth estate - a body that stays independent from government and large interest groups.

The traditional bottom line has been that journalists have to be neutral and just report the news, which helps the newspaper or station they represent in attracting business by way of advertisements on the basis that the journalism offered did not take sides and therefore did not harm the interests of the advertisers.

However, an entirely different breed of journalist also exists. Called advocacy journalists, their reportage is fact-based but support a specific point of view on an issue.

Advocacy journalists might be expected to focus on stories dealing with corporate business practices, government policies, political corruption, and social issues.

Advocacy journalists do not only report the corporate and civilian world but also report on war and give their own points of view. This brand of journalism is mostly seen under editorials of newspapers.

One of the most important features of virtuous journalism is objectivity which is frequently held to be essential to proper journalism. A credible journalist of integrity will always be objective and present facts as they stand, a quality which has had disastrous consequences.

In the final analysis, the real worth of a journalists is in the manner in which a report is published. Although it is objectivity that is most critical to a journalist, objectivity and the journalist’s own perception of it may determine his own fate at the hands of the profession and its exigencies.

While sociologist Michael Schudson argues that “the belief in objectivity is a faith in ‘facts,’ a distrust in ‘values,’ and a commitment to their segregation.”, an objective story is typically considered to be one that steers a middle path between two poles of political rhetoric.

The tenets of objectivity are violated to the degree to which the story appears to favour one pole over the other.

According to some, it refers to the prevailing ideology of news gathering and reporting that emphasises eyewitness accounts of events, corroboration of facts with multiple sources and “balance”.

It also implies an institutional role for journalists as a fourth estate, a body that exists apart from government and large interest groups.

Others hold it should mean reporting things without bias as if one just came to Earth from another planet and had no preconceived opinions about our behaviour or ways. This form of journalism is rarely practised, although some argue it would lead to radical changes in reporting.

Still others hold it to mean that journalists should have something like a neutral point of view, not taking a stand on any issues on which there is some disagreement.

Instead, journalists are simply to report what “both sides” of an issue tell them. Some even extend this standard to the journalist’s personal life, prohibiting them from getting involved in political activities, which necessarily require taking a stand.

This last approach, while giving a balanced view of a set of facts, detracts from investigative journalism which often assists the journalist in proving a fact to his readership.

However, journalism in any form is a sine qua non for a discerning society. In such a context, any attempt at eliminating journalists who threaten the ill founded beliefs and interests of others is a crime against humanity.

Journalism is an established discipline of collecting, verifying, analyzing and presenting information gathered regarding current events including trends, issues and people.

Unlike many other professions, journalism has the most stringent of ethics and standards which include a professional “code of ethics” or the “canons of journalism.”

The basic codes and canons commonly appear in statements drafted by both professional journalism associations and individual print, broadcast and online individual organizations.

While various existing codes have some differences, most share common elements including the principles of truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness and public accountability as these apply to the acquisition of newsworthy information and its subsequent reportage to the public.

Like many broader ethical systems, journalism ethics include the principle of “limitation of harm.” This often involves the withholding of certain details from reports such as the names of minor children, crime victims’ names or information not materially related to particular news reports release of which might, for example, harm them.

Psychological Factors

Not all war journalists suffer trauma. However, many of them do as they are only human. Anthony Feinstein, in his seminal book Journalists Under Fire - The Psychological Hazards of Covering War, records nightmares, loss of pleasure, grief and hallucinations as possible effects of the experience of trauma by the war journalist and includes post traumatic stress disorder.

Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is the term used for a severe and ongoing emotional reaction to an extreme trauma of a psychological nature.

It may involve someone’s actual death (including the death of a colleague) or a threat to a person’s life that is perceived by the person who develops PTSD as a result.

PTSD may also result from the perception of any serious physical injury, or threat to physical and/or psychological integrity, to a degree that usual psychological defences cannot cope with.

PTSD is a relatively new phenomenon (earlier referred to by the medical profession as “whiplash injuries) and is a legally cognizable harm per se. PTSD excludes mental injury caused as a result of a person’s death by natural causes (such as witnessing the death of a family member under natural circumstances).

It includes mental injury or distress caused by witnessing sudden events such as accidents, natural disasters and instances of armed combat.

Typical symptoms of PTSD are recurrent and persistent experiencing of an event in question; exclusion of the outside world when experiencing such recurrences of events in one’s mind; avoidance of circumstances needing change; and increased discombobulation and disturbance of mind, resulting in such experiences as lack of sleep and temper tantrums.

It is only natural to conclude that trauma and war journalism frequently go hand in hand when one looks at the figures.

For instance, more than 80 journalists have been killed in Iraq since the commencement of the war in 2003 and more than 1,200 journalists have been killed in the past 10 years of foreign reporting.

Journalists belong to a professional category that experiences sustained and direct exposure to war and terror, making them prime victims of stress and trauma.

Therefore, journalists, especially reporters who cover disaster, war and terror are as vulnerable to stress and trauma as are other professionals, from fire-fighters and disaster counsellors to combat soldiers.

Reporters on foreign assignments are often required to work alone in the field, with limited or no support. This could result in serious elevation of stress levels, disorientation and debilitation.

Journalists in places of hardship have been known to abuse drugs or alcohol and struggle in their marriages. There have been instances of absolute emotional numbness, hyper arousal and other results culminating in physical reactions such as uncontrolled vomiting and defecating.

The performance of journalists can be seriously affected by trauma, bringing to bear the need to apply for sick leave and even terminate their careers. Stephen J.A. Ward, in his book Global Journalism Ethics - Trauma and Journalists, is of the view that news organizations have a long-term interest in making sure that journalists are aware of trauma and can access counselling.

Ward goes on to say that trauma program needs to be part of an organization’s efforts to promote employee well-being and health in the workplace and that newsrooms have an ethical obligation to establish such programs, since it is they who send journalists into the field.

Hazardous

The above discussion leaves no room for doubt that war journalism is a particularly hazardous profession. Yet, despite clear and unequivocal scientific knowledge and conclusions on trauma and stress, major news organizations became aware of the enormity of the problem and responded with establishing trauma programs only recently, in the past few years.

There has been some slow progress in the face of denial, scepticism and resistance among many journalists themselves and their editors.

It is somewhat regrettable that there are still only a few known scientific studies which address the link between trauma and the profession of journalism and too few trauma services for journalists.

Besides, there is no widespread culture among the profession itself that recognizes the link, leaving things wide open for journalists to be unprepared for the impact of stress.

Shaw offers the view that journalism is far behind other professions, such as educational counselling and fire and police departments, in recognizing trauma as a serious issue that brings out a compelling need for attention.

He says that the myth still exists that journalists shouldn’t need trauma programs because journalists are supposed to be “tough as nails” and that when it comes to trauma, journalism sometimes appears to be one of the last “macho” professions.

This myth has to be dispelled.