If, as a journalist, you want to avoid one-sided reporting and you want to take into account a wide variety of positions, perspectives and topics, you can regularly ask yourself the following questions:
What is my personal opinion on the subject?
Newsrooms are not equipped with automated news machines that reliably spit out objective truths when a popular world event is fed into them. The biases and internalized prejudices of journalists affect the decisions that lead to the selection of which tiny section of reality is worth reporting. Reporting professionally therefore starts by first being aware and questioning your own interests, attitudes, experiences, and preferences. Those who don’t question their own views, taking their personal viewpoints to be the only true or universal way of looking at things are going to have a hard time becoming good journalists.
Am I presenting a variety of perspectives?
Look at each topic from as many perspectives as possible before deciding what your report should look like. Journalists sometimes tend to turn social debates into some sort of team competitions. It’s team state neutrality vs. team headscarf. But reality offers many more facets. A discussion with experts can provide new insights and broaden one's own perspective. Perhaps there is also someone in your editorial team who could draw attention to other sides of a story. If not, you should make it a topic of discussion.
Do people whose story is being told also have a voice in the story?
TV shows with an all-white panel discussing racism, heterosexuals talking about homophobia or people without disabilities debating about inclusion in the education system are still aired. But now they can recon with a resentful audience. With such topics, as with all other topics, the media need to portray society in all its diversity. After all, topics such as the price of gas, the covid pandemic or national pensions affect all of us.
Incidentally, some groups are ignored because they do not have the necessary resources and cannot offer professional press work with a contact person for media questions. This may make it harder for journalists to report about them but is no excuse for excluding them. Find out how to remedy this here.
Am I taking the perpetrator's perspective?
Especially in hate crime reporting, journalists often fail to clearly distinguish between perpetrators and victims. A gay couple was not attacked "because they were kissing", a wife was not murdered "because she wanted to leave", a Jew was not spat at "because he wore a kippah", a woman was not attacked "because of a headscarf". People are victims of violence because of homophobic, misogynistic, or anti-Semitic mind-sets of the perpetrators. Headlines like "She had to die because she wore a headscarf" only take the perspective of the perpetrators. You must want to do that and not do it by mistake.
Do I question clichés?
Journalists both chronicle and shape social discourse. Especially when reporting on socially disadvantaged minorities, they must question prevailing negative viewpoints, analyse, and classify them to avoid prejudice in their reporting.
Is the story really about "large Arab families" or is it perhaps just about three teenagers in Berlin-Neukölln? Is it true at that people with disabilities always "suffer their fate"? Are bisexual people really more promiscuous than the rest of society? And why do we so often hear about career women but never career men?
Journalists are not immune to falling for clichés. But when that happens, their work no longer has much to do with professional reporting.
Do I fall for populist arguments?
Spreading clichés and untruths is the first step in creating social moods and debates that have nothing to do with reality. Often it is just a little spin that turns an insignificant event into a media uproar: Do "the Muslims" really want to ban "our Christmas" or did the statement originally come from some guy on the internet? Did the professor for gender studies really call for a ban on certain terms or did she simply make a suggestion? Is the annoying new Kindergarten brochure really worth reporting on, or might it not be better to take it up as a topic for the next parents' evening?
It is part of the strategy of populists to deliberately provoke or to break taboos in order to spread their ideology. It is part of a journalist’s job not to fall for any of that.
Do I unnecessarily polarise?
Journalists need to make themselves understood but without oversimplifying. Topics such as flight and migration, reasons for urban crime, how to make our language gender-sensitive, or reporting on non-binary identities are complex. Monocausal explanations and reporting that classifies things in the simple categories of “good” or “bad” almost always lead astray. And this, too, is a fact that you should feel free to tell your audience or readership.
Am I normalising anti-democratic, unscientific, or misanthropic positions?
Fortunately, no editor today would think of publishing a column on the "pros and cons" of women's suffrage or would seriously demand renegotiations on the Oder-Neisse border discussion. The strength of our democracy and our respect for human values is also reflected by which debates we no longer engage in. This means the media can also stop giving certain people a platform to voice their racist, sexist, homophobic or anti-democratic positions. Because the more such positions are voiced in the media, the more normal they appear to be.
Debating questions like "Should we rescue refugees in the Mediterranean?", "Are same-sex parents a danger to their children?" or "Does Islam belong to Germany?" are deliberately aimed at further marginalising already marginalised groups and making the unspeakable appear legitimate. Diverse perspectives and open debates are important, but Basic Law lays down the limits.
Should trans* people be allowed to determine their gender? Should inter-sex people be allowed to participate in sporting competitions? It is very common for feature writers or guest authors with limited expertise to express steep opinions on such subjects. However, in-depth knowledge and sensitivity are required when it comes to subjects such as minority rights. Anti- LGBTI+ sentiments are fuelled with millions of euros. Reputable media need to expose such campaigns rather than support them.
Joane Studnik, Berliner Zeitung
Am I representing diverse opinions and people?
This is something journalists and reporters can easily accomplish. And yet some social groups hardly get represented, while other positions and groups appear to be omnipresent. In 2019, for example, more people named Peter than people with any Turkish name appeared on public TV and radio talk shows. This doesn’t reflect the reality of Germany as a country of immigration. Journalists ought to remind themselves of this when putting together their lists of protagonists, experts or studio guests.
Quelle: Christine Fiedler