|
In the professional news-media realm, writers are generally expected to abide by the High and Mighty Prime Directive of Journalism: though shalt report with complete and utter objectivity. In other words, we’re not supposed to show any bias or prejudice toward or against any side of an issue.
Now, taking a step back from fantasy land, we all know this is rarely ever achieved. Let’s take the example you’re probably all thinking of: Fox News. They’re rarely ever “fair and balanced.” Sometimes this is shown in the explicit opinions voiced by talking dickheads like Bill O’Reilly, other times it’s more implicit. Sometimes it’s not how a news organization covers something, but what they choose to cover.
Then there are other types of journalism where showing a little bias is okay, or even expected. Advocacy journalism (reporting that aims to support or endorse an idea or cause) is a perfect example. While an article’s subject matter may not revolve entirely around the idea, it is at least framed in a way which advances that cause’s viewpoint. Take an article about local business and economy. Done objectively, it’s just a normal story. But focus on the struggle small businesses face competing with Wal-Mart or Target, and you’ve got yourself an advocacy piece.
The main difference between advocacy journalism and propaganda is that the former strives to be factual at all times. Advocacy pieces in mainstream papers are usually restricted to the editorial and op-ed pages. Then there are entire publications centered around advocacy journalism. These are targeted and marketed to people who want that sort of a bias. For example, The Nation generally advances liberal or progressive ideas and is generally read by people who would consider themselves such. Rush Limbaugh accomplishes the same goal for the other side.
Then there are niche publications, like Better Homes and Gardens, GamePro, Field & Stream, etc. These specialize in certain topics of interest, and sometimes these topics carry an implicit bias. That’s where we fall.
Our niche, hip-hop, is inherently political and social in nature. Hence, striving to maintain an objective balance on issues of importance is not only inappropriate, it separates us from our niche. Posting a McCain-Palin advertising banner on the site would be grossly misrepresentative of our constituents. For that matter, I think advancing any pro-Republican views would be a poor choice. My opinion is that you cannot simultaneously be hip-hop and Republican, for the same reason there’s no such thing as a born-again Christian punk: one group’s core values contrasts the other group’s too much to coincide. (I would be thrilled to post a dissenting opinion! Please send!)
But other examples are less clearly cut. Take the story on the death of the independent record store, in which I blatantly promote independent local record retailers and degrade the damaging practices of online giants like Amazon and big-box stores like Best Buy.
Now here’s where it gets really muddy. Some of our independent local artists (I dare not guess who) may want to sell their music through Amazon, iTunes, and Best Buy, and may even give them price or exclusivity incentives. These artists might argue that these venues expose their music to a larger pool of potential fans. This seems to make sense logically. The million-dollar question is: which of these viewpoints is correct? Which of these more truly represents the “official” viewpoint of the culture, or niche, which we represent?
Sometimes there isn’t an official viewpoint. For example, I might personally believe that the “hip-hop” choice for president is Barack Obama because he’s black, he’s liberal, and he has Ludacris on his iPod. But someone else who is more discernibly “hip-hop” might say that it doesn’t matter, because the two-party system is inherently racist, sexist, or whatever. For that reason, our publication does not officially endorse Obama, even though I do. But I digress.
The point is, there isn’t always an official viewpoint. If there was, it would make things a lot more boring. In the coming months (and hopefully years), I may advance ideas which piss you off. Maybe I’m trying to invoke debate, or maybe I don’t even realize others in our niche feel differently. If that’s the case, great, because we want to hear from you! That’s why we have community forums and a box to submit your comments at the bottom of each story. Diversity of opinions is a good thing, even if one opinion is widely unpopular among our readers. Trends show that readers want more of an exchange of information and ideas in news publications and less of the traditional, "here's-the-facts" approach. It’s part of what makes up that hyped-up buzz term, “Web 2.0.” It's part of the evolution of global technology and communication. And it’s just a part of what we strive to incorporate as we advance this independent, community-based, advocacy, niche publication.
'Nuff said.
# # #
by Roe Pressley |
