watchdog

In class we discussed the idea of watchdog journalism.  And how it is the journalists job to "listen to public officials and watch what they do and see if they match up."  How else are we supposed to get the truth to the public?  The Neiman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University has a little section called Neiman Watchdog where they say: "The premise of watchdog journalism is that the press is a surrogate for the public, asking probing, penetrating questions at every level, from the town council to the state house to the White House, as well as in corporate and professional offices, in union halls, on university campuses and in religious organizations that seek to influence governmental actions."

The first definition dictionary.com gives for surrogate is: a person appointed to act for another; deputy.  So basically, as a watchdog journalist it is your job to act for the public, to listen for them and gather as much information as possible.  The public doesn't have the same access to the same resources (i.e. events, officials, influential people) that most journalists do so it is the journalists job to "see that people in power provide information the public should have."

Now just because one is a watchdog journalist doesn't mean one loses their independence.  It is actually crucial for one to maintain their independence as a watchdog journalist.  In The Elements of Journalism it states that "journalists must serve as an independent monitor of power" (140).  It is vital that we continue to uphold our independence and try (as best we can) to present an objective viewpoint to present a fair story to the public.  

Now on to objectivity.  We discussed this a little bit in class and I don't think there is such a thing a pure objectivity.  Because we all come from different backgrounds and have had various events influence us and make us who we are, different things affect us.  Professor Campbell brought up what happened with 9/11 and asked Lakia, who is from New York, if she would be able to write an objective article on what happened there.  I don't think I would be able to.  Granted I didn't have a relative who worked there and was out of the office on a business meeting, but my older sister was on a ferry headed to go tour the Twin Towers and actually saw the planes hit the buildings.  I have relatives who were living in New York at the time and I remember how stressed my mom was, calling her siblings and father to make sure they were okay.  There is no way I would be able to write a completely objective article on that.  I feel it would be going against my personal code of ethics to not go to my editor and say "there is no way I'm going to be able to make this article sound objective and not get emotional about it, is there anyway I could switch with someone?"  And in my brain, it all works out.  I get a new story I can be (more) objective about and my editor gets a solid, less emotional story from a different writer.