Renowned Time journalist, James Poniewozik, offered his intuitive perspective on journalism in a blog post entitled, “Why Journalists Are like SCOTUS Nominees.” In his post, he methodically illustrates how the character, duties, and public responsibilities of journalists closely resemble those qualities of Supreme Court Nominees. He goes on to explain several key points in an effective Chicken-Soup-For-The-Journalists-Soul way:
* Much of our public discourse rests on the official assumption—ridiculous to anyone with common sense—that [judges/journalists] can and should be unaffected by their background, beliefs and life experiences.
* It’s not true, of course. Not only are [judges/journalists] informed by their life experience, they’d be worse at their work if they weren’t, because…
* …it’s a myth to believe that either profession always involves finding absolute, objective truths, agreed upon by any rational person, like the laws of math. Both, instead, also involve interpretation and judgment.
* For that reason, it’s a good thing for everyone that the profession as a whole include people from as many different backgrounds as possible. This is not for some idealistic reason of pluralism and fairness; it’s because it is practically better for society for each profession to bring to bear a breadth of human perspectives on its work.
* But each profession also ultimately bases its work in fact. There’s a difference between being informed by your experience and being driven by your preferences. There’s a difference between applying your perspective and selectively ignoring facts that don’t square with your beliefs. Recognizing that difference involves intellectual integrity.
* If we were all mature enough to recognize that intellectual integrity is the ideal—not some mythical, absolute neutrality—then we could accept that [judges/journalists] could hold beliefs, like any intelligent person does, and yet not be enslaved to them. We would judge them by their work and its integrity, not their adherence to some inhuman standard.
These Commandments of Journalism hold enough inspiration to live by. They strike heartstrings that remind me that no matter what type of publication I read–dirt bag celebrity gossip, tabloids, fashion magazines, health and fitness articles, local, business, local, world, or The Onion–they all contribute to this abstract, yet entirely comprehensible and bigger-than-yourself, idea of intellectual integrity. I must also cite the difference between the two–Where publications typically serve advertising companies, sales goals, and the public’s desire for entertainment, Supreme Court Justices must serve Justice and all people deserving of the moral concept. While Justices are informed by their ideas, experiences, and beliefs, sometimes circumstances call for those ideas, experience, and beliefs to be deferred in lieu of serving the bigger picture of Justice. However, like the different flavors of entertainment, different experiences influence the way we view justice. These perspectives of justice may conflict with the socially-agreed upon views of justice, so perhaps, Supreme Court Justices are a slave to Society’s perception of justice. This isn’t always considering our culture once upheld that women don’t have the right to vote…However, Poniewozik, does mention flaws in judgment:
* But we’re not always mature enough; or sometimes it’s too easy to demagogue someone’s beliefs as proof that they are dishonest.
Read the full article here.
[ Source: Time ]