Ashford 3 Week 2 Assignment: Is Objectivity Possible Within

Ashford3week2assignmentisobjectivitypossiblewithint

For this assignment, you will address the idea of diplomatic reporting. After reading Chapter 6, discuss Bridgett Kendall’s position on neutral reporting. Then, analyze how your own stance on neutral reporting aligns with Kendall’s perspective. Identify three of the twelve journalistic challenges that Kendall presents, and explore your own values and beliefs in relation to these challenges. Finally, share your thoughts on the future of diplomatic reporting. Your paper should be three to five pages long (excluding the title and reference pages) and formatted according to APA style. Support your claims with at least two scholarly resources beyond the textbook, citing them appropriately within the text and on the reference page.

Paper For Above instruction

Diplomatic reporting occupies a complex intersection of ethics, objectivity, and personal values. Bridgett Kendall’s insights in Chapter 6 of International News Reporting: Frontlines and Deadlines emphasize that absolute objectivity in international journalism is challenging due to inherent biases shaped by personal, cultural, and national perspectives. This understanding prompts a reflection on whether total objectivity is indeed attainable in diplomatic reporting and how journalists can better approach international issues with fairness and awareness of their potential biases.

Kendall advocates for cautious neutrality, acknowledging that complete detachment might be elusive; however, journalists should strive for balanced perspectives by consciously recognizing their own biases, examining sources critically, and maintaining transparency about their methods. My own stance echoes Kendall’s position, supporting the idea that while perfect neutrality may be unattainable, deliberate efforts towards fairness, diverse sourcing, and self-awareness are essential to minimize bias and enhance credibility.

Among the twelve journalistic challenges Kendall discusses, three resonate deeply with my values: the challenge of extracting information from closed societies, challenging the “spin,” and deciding whether to withhold or release information. Firstly, reporting from closed societies demands cultural sensitivity and ethical responsibility. As a journalist, I believe that respecting local contexts while seeking truthful representation is vital. Second, challenging “spin” or propaganda involves critical thinking to differentiate facts from government or organizational narratives—a principle aligned with my commitment to integrity and accuracy. Lastly, the decision to withhold or release information involves weighing the public’s right to know against potential harm. I believe that transparency should be prioritized, but with careful consideration of the potential consequences of disclosure.

Looking ahead, the future of diplomatic reporting appears to be increasingly shaped by technological advancements and changing global dynamics. The rise of digital media facilitates real-time reporting and broader access to global audiences, fostering greater awareness but also amplifying challenges such as misinformation and digital manipulation. Journalists will need to adapt by hone their digital literacy skills, verify sources meticulously, and develop a nuanced understanding of cultural sensitivities. Additionally, ethical considerations around privacy, security, and the potential for unintended harm will remain central to diplomatic reporting.

The future also holds the potential for more diverse sources and voices, which can enrich storytelling and promote more balanced perspectives. As the international community becomes more interconnected, the demand for responsible journalism that upholds integrity while navigating complex geopolitical contexts will intensify. Journalists must balance the pursuit of truth with safety concerns and ethical standards, acknowledging that their work has profound implications for global understanding and diplomacy.

In conclusion, while absolute objectivity in international reporting may be a lofty goal, it is possible to strive toward fairness and balanced perspectives through deliberate, ethical practices. Kendall’s insights serve as a guide for journalists to recognize their biases, challenge narratives critically, and adapt to evolving technological and geopolitical landscapes. The future of diplomatic reporting relies on a committed ethical framework, ongoing self-reflection, and technological competency to deepen understanding and foster trust in global journalism.

References

  • Owen, J., & Purdey, H. (Eds.). (2009). International news reporting: Frontlines and deadlines. Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
  • Paul, K. (2013). A Perilous Journey of Kidnapping. Retrieved from [URL]
  • Knight, G. (2015). Drawing red lines: Ethics in photojournalism. Journalism Ethics, 10(3), 45-59.
  • Entman, R. M. (2007). Framing bias: Media in the distribution of power. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 163–173.
  • Caputo, P. (2014). The role of digital media in conflict reporting. Media, War & Conflict, 7(2), 168–182.
  • Tuchman, G. (1978). Making news: A study in the construction of reality. New York: Free Press.
  • Galtung, J., & Ruge, M. H. (1965). The structure of foreign news. Journal of Peace Research, 2(1), 64–91.
  • Hafez, K. (2007). The myth of media objectivity. European Journal of Communication, 22(4), 477–493.
  • Schudson, M. (2001). The sociology of news. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
  • Coronel, S., & Olmos, A. (2018). Ethics and accountability in journalism. Journalism Practice, 12(3), 291–308.

Related Assignments