What happens when journalists cover cultures completely different from theirs? Should they strive to be objective or should they identify a moral ground from which to report a story?

The notion of objectivity is the foundational belief in mainstream American journalism. What happens when journalists cover places and people whose culture is completely different from theirs? Should they strive to be objective or should they identify a moral ground from which to report a story? If so, how do they determine what that moral ground should be? Or are they imposing their morality on others?

I think journalism should print the facts without coloring it with their opinions or beliefs. Almost all journalism today is tainted by the reporters biases. I think people are intelligent enough to make up their own minds. Journalists should be objective and not push their beliefs on others.

I agree with Marcia S that journalists should always maintain their objectivity when reporting. However, I also imagine that it's very challenging to accomplish, especially when covering a different culture. Assumptions, biases, and/or stereotypes can seep in though the questions that are posed in an interview. I was surprised that Smita wanted to interview Meena's brothers and Rupal given how horrific their crime was, and our sympathetic she felt toward Meena. But then I realized that she was just being the very good journalist that she was known for, and needed to be able to describe a complete picture regardless of her personal disdain for them.

While reading another Bookbrowse selection, I learned that many of the traditions practiced today in Somalia are the same that were practiced over 200 years ago in clan societies. I am assuming that this is the case in India and many other countries outside of the United States. I think the difficulty in reporting stories from these places is coming at them from with US values and not understanding how things don't evolve over time in many of these places like they do in the US. Smita struggled with this once she visited Meena and developed somewhat of a relationship with her. I think this is one reason it had been so easy for Rupal to manipulate Smita when she had a chance to interview him. She had become emotionally involved. She was letting her feelings on the treatment of women show. And she was also remembering what it felt like to be persecuted because of her religion.

I think it is important for journalists to be as objective as possible. Of course, they are human, and sometimes this is a challenge. Smita shared with Mohan all the pain and suffering she had seen while traveling to do her job. She carries all that with her.

Journalism has changed as a result of technology. Printed news sources are struggling. As we get busier we want our news to be quick and easy- -I'm guilty of sometimes just reading a headline on a social media post and then skipping to the comments. When readers can participate in the news this way, the message can easily be diluted by the personalities sharing their views about it. I think the 24 hour availability of news has damaged the pureness of the profession. There are more "talk shows" that are opinion based to keep watchers engaged and ratings high. More so than journalists, we have "personalities". As frustrated as I am by lack of objective and solid investigative reporting, I don't think I'm alone. i'm sure many idealistic journalists are frustrated by the changes that have come to (come for?) their profession. Imagine spending months investigating a story, writing an objective piece for a paper or magazine, and hearing your work called "fake news". It would be very disheartening.

No, acstrine, you are not alone. I agree with you fully. You said it so well that I have nothing of consequence to add.

Although not a journalist, being able to report a story without prejudice is crucial to writing history. People will add their own spin and read what they want, but the journalist needs to ensure all facts, good and bad, are presented equally. It is not their job to let someone know what they think is good or bad. In politics, it is easy to try to sway people to believe as you do, but is it the right thing to do? That would be a no.

I also agree with Marcia S that journalists should be objective in their reporting. when reporting on incidents that occur in a country with a culture the reporter is not familiar with they should become familiar and try to live that culture at least in their minds before reporting. Perhaps, in this case Meehan felt comfortable talking to Smita because she felt a bonding.

I agree with the others that it is important for journalists to be objective and factual when reporting rather than trying to persuade their readers to think a certain way. Journalists should respect the ability of their readers to form their own opinions and conclusions about what they read!

I agree with the others - it is critical that journalists maintain an an objective position when reporting and that the story that they report be factual and present all sides to the story. With that said, I think it is the reader’s obligation to understand that 100% objectivity is impossible - we all see through a variety of lenses shaped by cultural background, life experiences, environment. It is therefore the reader’s responsibility to explore as many perspectives to a story/situation in order to form opinions.

I agree with the premise that journalists should be objective and maintain a neutral position. Unfortunately, as others have noted, that has not been the norm with the growth of social media. I'm not sure about modern training for journalists but would be curious if this neutrality is still stressed. I saw a play once that also dealt with the impact on journalists of years of covering international wars, famines, political strife, and maintaining that neutrality. They became addicted to the adrenaline from being in stressful situations, and hardened to pain and suffering.

Journalists need to let the facts speak for themselves. If I read a factual piece outlining the events in this story I would be outraged. If someone from Meena’s village reported the facts as being justified it wouldn’t sway my opinion in any way. Even looking at this situation objectively I can’t imagine anyone writing something that could sway me to side with Meenas brothers or the village council.

Journalist should be objective, however I can see how cultural differences can trip up someone who was not paying attention or hadn’t done tier homework. Having a journalist stationed somewhere probably helps with this. Unfortunately today we get mostly commentary rather than actually reporting in our country’s news… it’s very important that a society gets factual rather than commentary so they can form their our own opinions. No matter where you are reporting facts should be clearly stated without partiality, that being said Live reporting would be very difficult not to tow a morale ground if someone was being tortured.

One would hope that journalists presented just the facts. However we all come with our biases and it often colors our perceptions. In the US it is difficult to know what is the truth. Then there are those who don’t want the truth.

I think the facts need to be reported but also reporters can add some insight into the history of certain situations.Sometimes when the history of an incident is not completely revealed we can’t make a real informed decision. Some historical facts that have taken place in a foreign country would always be helpful as long as they’re factual and informative.

I believe in investigative journalism as it is one of the best ways of shedding light on the great injustices that exist in the world. Often, journalists from outside a given country have greater freedom to write the story as the murder of writers and reporters who live under repressive rule is a growing problem. There is the potential problem of Poverty Porn however that the author refers to on page 281 where writers exploit others by sensationalizing their stories in order to gain readers and fame. Smita worries that perhaps she has fallen into this trap when her editor pressures her to create headlines and a "breaking news" type story telling of Meena's death.

I agree with Marcia S. Journalists should be objective and not push their beliefs on others.

Smita’s complete horror at the brothers’ actions limited her ability to be objective with them and with Ruhan. I’m sure she thought she was being objective—after all, burning is horrible in itself. But outrage in a reporter’s questions is a very poor way to get at the truth. In these cases, it is helpful for the journalist to phrase their interviews in the context of the morality of the place. When an article is published, I think the context of the issue should be carefully expressed at the outset. Readers will get the point (I trust), and if carefully written perhaps the subjects might see their actions in another light. In this country, sometimes truthful reports of barbarism help to make societal change. In other countries perhaps, barbarism carefully conveyed could bring change also.

mceacd, I immediately thought of Mohan when I read the last part of your response. While he didn’t read the story in a newspaper, his eyes were opened to the wrongs being committed outside of the city and against women as he accompanied Smita. I think knowing will motivate him to bring more awareness to the practice of honor killings. I think he will also become a stronger advocate for women.

I think that journalists should be objective. We need to hear both sides. I do not think that in cases like this I could be objective, so it is good I am not a reporter. I don't think it is up to a reporter to go in and try to change things in someone else's country. I believe this tradition should be changed, but it is only up to journalists to report actually what happened.