Category: Uncategorized (Page 6 of 6)

The readings for this week reminded me of the difficulties I face when conducting sensitive interviews. Even though I approach interviewing victims and families of victims with empathy and consideration, I still struggle to ask questions because I often feel a moral quandary about stirring up emotions in people who have been affected by a harmful event. However, with war reporting, and also more generally migration reporting, these questions are crucial to writing a fully representative report about all aspects of the war. The NPR piece on the silence of rape survivors, and the rareness of prosecutions, illustrates just how important it is to highlight victims’ voices. Of course, only on the victim’s consent should their story be told. But when, and if, they do consent to sharing their stories then it is the job of a journalist to sensitively navigate sharing their perspective.

The first article on the Ukraine war was particularly interesting to me because I wasn’t aware at all of the history behind the war before it began, beyond the fact that Putin had justified his invasion as an attempt at “reunifying” Ukraine with Russia. The author draws a comparison between the complacency of both the West with regard to Russia, and Russia to the West. The author calls back to a similar war between Serbia and Bosnia in 1992 where, just as Russia doesn’t recognize Ukraine’s autonomy, Serbs disregarded Bosnian identity. While reading about the Ukrainian war, I have often thought about the strong allegiance to their nation that is required of Ukrainanians right now. Since the war began without violent provocation by Ukraine, it must have been especially fearsome for a smaller nation to go up against a larger firepower, with greater manpower and financial resources as well. Yet, the strengthening of nationalism is evident, especially when one looks at how previously non-militant Ukrainians continue to sign up to fight the war. I remember reading in the WaPo about a young and recently married Ukrainian couple who signed up for the army at the beginning of the war, even against the pleas from their families. They ended up passing away in war, but they were regarded by their families as an example of the strong affinity that Ukrainians felt for their nation and its independence, particularly in the wake of Putin’s invasion.

“Letters from Ukraine” shocked me in its details about the terror of the war in Ukraine. I was particularly horrified by the anecdote of how the Russian occupants allowed evacuations in one of the cities, only to shoot those who tried to leave. I was equally as horrified by the lack of prosecution of war mass rape by the Russianss at the end of World War II. As a SPIA major, I’m very interested in international affairs and the efficacy of international organizations such as the International Criminal Court and International War Tribunals. I’m extremely surprised by the limitations of the ICC, and especially by the fact that the US is a member. I hope that continued reporting on the devastation brought by the Russian invasion and personal journalistic accounts like those in “This American Life” will have the power to move international leaders, and citizens to pressure those leaders, to take the steps necessary to see that justice is found. Namely, that the top figures in Russia are arrested and prosecuted.

I think a quote that perfectly sums up the derision that Russia has with its current state and where it wants to go is that Russia “looks both east and west,” and also that “Russia could be a democracy or an empire but it could not be both,”.  Russia deludes itself by thinking that if has inherent claims to independent nations.  They spout these beliefs of wrong doing and the justice they have in “freeing” them while also perpetuating harm on citizens within these countries.  A horrific example of this is them establishing a zone for evacuation and then shooting civilians who try to leave.   Russia wants to assert itself as a global power and dominant figure.  I think it is very unlikely that one could ever be both a democracy and an empire but I think Russia fails to be either.  It tries to coerce neighboring countries into its sphere of influence but faces repeated backlash for this.

The state of the countries that fight to remain independent of Russia and even just the state of war in Ukraine point to what my English professor cited as modernism.  We are reading Modern fiction and she described modern as the end of something.  The break from traditional and the values being broken and reformed.  This was most evident at the turn of the 20th century and through the Second World War. Much in the way former colonies pushed away from colonial powers we saw this similar shift with the fall of the Berlin Wall.  As they have gained independence and they desire them back I think we are on this same fault line that precipitated modern fiction and shifts in the geopolitics at the start of the last century.  The first article clearly demonstrated that Western powers and Eastern powers are struggling to find their balance on the world stage.  I think this changing landscape is influenced by changing relationships and citizens and countries willingness to fight for justice and freedom

I think the last point I want to hone in on is the International tribunals and courts.  I think It is a real struggle to hold leaders accountable for acts of violence and aggression on the world stage. It is alarming to hear how rape is an actual military strategy or also seen is as a valid way to seek revenge on nations. Rape is already often an underreported and often not believed crime that many get away with.  For it to be so common and for so many to go unpunished is truly sad.  I think also on the grounds of crimes of aggression and also the difficulty in prosecuting the actual officials who sent down the orders I find it interesting to cite Nuremberg.  Because yes it was prosecuted but often many years later.  And also to think about how in WWII the crimes were very explicit and hard displays of aggression and violence.  It was very clear to many that actions and justice needed to be served.  But when its like many other wars and not as clearly laid out as concentration camps and rounding up of certain persons I feel like people are much more willing to ignore and prolong the justice served.  While they both should demand the same convictions to justice it is very hard in reality for this to come to fruition.

“But we’ve been at war for eight years already.”

An important message that is conveyed by this comment in Lindsey Hilsum’s letters is that the Russia-Ukraine war didn’t start with the invasion of Ukraine in 2022, it resurfaced in public media then. The Russia-Ukraine war has been ongoing since the annexation of Crimea in 2014. I guess this was a detail that surprised me more than it should’ve because every war is preceded by history, tension, and preparation (which sometimes hides in plain sight). As Alan Little says in his BBC article “The evidence has been building for years.” The alleged murder of exiled Russians, the invasion of Eastern Ukraine, the annexation of Crimea. He then creatively reveals his version of how Putin thinks about Ukraine, how Putin was mistaken in his estimates (causing the invasion to prolong from days, as Putin was expecting, to over a year now) by drawing an analogy between the relations of Russia and Ukraine to those of Serbia and Bosnia in 1994. Little’s article gives a concrete example of how sometimes history repeats a showing of the same play on the stage of the world, just starring different actors this time around. How little we learn every time, how predictably we act every time, but this isn’t a zero-sum game. There is a net effect of increasing harm that comes from the technological progress we make in defense. Before we stood at the brink of World Wars, now we stand at the brink of Human Extinction.

In her letters Hilsum talks about the destruction of Mariupol and the war crimes in Bucha. She was able to talk to many people fleeing Mariupol while she was in Zaporizhzhia, how desperate they were to talk about their stories of escape and to narrate their suffering to another human. A mother with her daughter who was so needlessly shot by the same Ukrainian soldiers that then tried to help her get medical attention for her wound. But I suspect that there was suffering in Bucha and Mariupol which Hilsum doesn’t have much testimony of in her letters, not for lack of trying, but perhaps because this kind of suffering had the opposite effect on people – it silences them. As Professor Amos reports, the crime of rape is perhaps the most difficult to prosecute because people hide their stories out of shame. It is a unique suffering in that in addition to the trauma of deeply physical and personal violation, it can be a shameful one even in today’s society.

As Hilsum reports in her letters most people fleeing were women and children while “most [men] would rather stay and fight (from what I can tell).” And men from all walks and stages of life appeared to be just as willing. Someone as amateur as Slawa, Lyndsey’s local producer from a previous visit to Ukraine was on the frontlines, and on the other hand (from the diaries of Yevgenia Belorusets featured in This American Life) someone as old as the 66 year old veteran Yevgenia encounters (who was in that moment taking care of his ailing wife) was willing to relive the horrors of fighting on the frontlines. I think seeing how the war changes people’s priorities in a way that is so drastic, poses them with hard choices, and leaves them with difficult losses through the human stories in This American Life was eye opening to the realities of war. When war is punctuated and remembered by the big defeats and conquers, it is easy to forget there are days in-between where dogs are walked, jokes are cracked, drinks are had, all experiences of the everyday felt now with a melancholy and grief left in the wake of the big days.

To start, I was struck by the mundane — and oftentimes comic — details that everyone from Katia (from “The Other Front Lines”) to Lindsey Hilsum (from “Letters from Ukraine”) mentioned in their narratives. These details are especially jarring while juxtaposed against everything else happening in Katia and Hilsum’s lives: Katia talks about simultaneously worrying over her dog peeing and tanks outside; Hilsum describes receiving tulips on International Women’s Day from soldiers risking their lives on the battlefield and having to think about sleeping and eating, even during war. Other details simply register as bleakly poignant: Hilsum spots a poster for the (now presumably canceled) Odesa Jazz and Oysters Festival.

Like other blog posts have mentioned, I recognize that the inclusion of these types of details are meant to humanize Ukrainians and show how they’re not so different from us — but why exactly do details like the Odesa Jazz and Oysters Festival make us feel poignant? The inclusion of certain details — without further explanation or exploration — invites us Western readers to feel a certain way (i.e. the Odesa Jazz and Oysters Festival signals how Odesa is a relatively wealthy place with Western(-ish) practices, so it’s tragic to us that the event was disrupted by war), but is this how Ukrainians actually feel? Are we implicitly making too large of an assumption here based off a single detail? Especially when it comes to longform/magazine journalism, I think writers tend to hunt for certain, “literary” details that they feel will act as a metaphor for a larger idea, but I just wonder whether this type of detail-hunting can go too far and distort a story too much (not saying that the Odesa Festival detail goes too far — but just an example).

Uma also mentioned the ethical quandaries that arise from international correspondents’ actions; I agree that some part of what foreign correspondents do — visit a war-torn country, interview traumatized people, then fly out in a few days to return to their cozy lives across the world — feels uneasily wrong. I have two things to add to her comments: First, as Uma mentions, in many parts of the world (I’m thinking especially of within authoritarian regimes), only journalists who hold Western passports and have the support of American/Western news organizations can safely report on sensitive topics without fearing for their personal safety. Even then, however, foreign correspondents’ work involves working with, and possibly endangering, local sources. For example, let’s say a dissident network in an authoritarian country is helping improve locals’ lives — do we as foreign reporters have an obligation to report on the network? To not report on it?

Second, the type of oral history that Katia (among others on “The Other Front Lines”) provides offers deep insights into life on the ground in a war zone without necessarily involving a foreign correspondent — it could indeed be a model for citizen journalism. But as Frank Langfitt mentioned last week, journalists have experience fact-checking everything — although journalists shouldn’t be relied upon to report objectively, good journalists should still be relied upon to report factually. Within a war zone, maintaining that standard of accuracy might still remain uniquely under the purview of professional reporters.

The first lesson of International Relations 101 – whose Princeton equivalent, POL 240, for some reason, evades the typical 100-level nomenclature – is that the world exists in a state of anarchy. With its etymological origins in the ancient Greek words αν, the prefix denoting absence, and άρχον, the noun for leader, anarchy in international relations describes the lack of a global sovereign. But anarchy also means chaos. In 2022, Ukrainian villages and cities, once homes to graying couples and TikTok teens, turned into shaded regions in operational maps as the entire country morphed into a battlefield. This week’s assigned material pokes holes at the veil of chaos that covered Ukraine after the Russian invasion.

The BBC top-down analysis included a commentary by Professor Timothy Garton Ash of Oxford University which framed the Ukraine war as a contest of worldviews. Connecting current events to critical points of disjuncture in European history, namely the 1945 Yalta conference and the 1975 Helsinki Final Act, Ash interprets this war as a competition between the Yalta world of spheres of influence, and Helsinki’s world of transnational democratic solidarity. Though the conflict in Ukraine is itself unprecedented, it is underpinned by timeless items of the European geopolitical agenda. Allan Little’s piece was overall focused on high politics; yet, the closing paragraph quoting former Defense Secretary Rober McNamara, made me realize just how little actual control exists over a war. “Robert McNamara explained how the world had avoided destroying itself. Was it skilled diplomacy? Wise leadership? No. “Luck,” he said. “We lucked out.” These phrases made me wonder how lucky we have been during this war. Has a nuclear catastrophe already been averted? And how much longer will our luck last? 

As a student of geopolitics, delving deeper into the worlds of Hobbes, Grotius, and Kant, often means seeing the real world grow increasingly distant. History, not the one with a capital H, but rather ordinary narratives, is often overlooked. It is accounts like Munachi and Alyona’s as presented on the This American Life podcast or reports like Lindsey Hilsum’s that can restore humanity, this time with a capital H, both in the study and conduct of international affairs. Those two pieces made the story of Ukraine personal. They also humanized it, and for me, the way they did that was through the use of humor. Conventional conflict coverage tends to focus on the grimmest and most brutal aspects of wars (which are obviously necessary to document so that justice can be pursued in the future). But scenes like the one in the WBEZ prologue where the dog pees on the Russian tank, or when Katia, refers to Zelensky as a sex symbol and his speech as ASMR for Westerners, or when Munachi says “I’m not a refugee bro, maybe you are, but not me,” and even when the hospitalized boy writes “‘Putin is a dick!’” on his iPad, stood out. Not only did they offer comedic relief, but importantly they were a portal to our shared humanity. They make the reader realize that Ukrainians are not unidimensional characters, mere protagonists in a faraway tragedy, but people just like us. People who still crack jokes.

Sulzberger calls for a Lippmanian approach to journalism, whereby “journalists do not serve a cause no matter how good.” But instead of merely stressing objectivity, the Times publisher emphasizes journalistic independence. The ability to craft stories that state all the facts and recognize uncertainty, stories that allow readers to see the full picture for themselves is critical for the survival of liberal democracies. Classic political theory tells us that liberal democratic polities require dynamic consensus-building, dialogue, and disagreement to endure. In this ecosystem, journalists do not pose as mere stenographers of the dominant narrative; rather, as Sulzberger mentions, their role is to “challenge and complicate consensus with smart questions and new information.” There is no Hippocratic oath for journalism, but Sulzberger’s commitment to following the facts, embracing uncertainty, and being ready to “exonerate someone deemed a villain or interrogate someone regarded as a hero” should be the guiding axiom of every media professional. In the contemporary hyperpolarized world, where divisions cut deep into the social fabric and the other side is demonized, the embodiment of this maxim by journalists who carry their own biases is becoming increasingly difficult.  

My country has been consistently ranking last among EU members in press freedom indexes, and maybe that is why I often catch myself being deeply cynical about the media. Yet, reading that even respected information titans like the New York Times or the Washington Post not only failed to thoroughly investigate the Trump-Russia affair and fell pray to partisan narratives, but also intentionally omitted evidence that would add nuance to their coverage and perhaps dampen political tribalism, disappointed me. Learning that the Clinton campaign manufactured conspiracy stories related to Trump’s involvement with Putin and then tipped off researchers to pitch stories to mainstream editors did not shock me; politics is a dirty, zero-sum game, where each candidate employs any and all means to victory. Journalists, however, must position themselves outside of this game. But what Gerth’s piece illustrates is that they instead put on gladiator armor, too, and entered the arena. 

The readings’ assigned order, with Gerth’s piece preceding Sulzberger’s, nurtured an intensely ironic, almost Oedipian, atmosphere. As the former’s extensive exposé revealed all the mishaps and errors that traditional media like the Times committed in their treatment of Trump’s alleged Russian ties and poured fuel on the fire of division and polarization spreading in America, the Gray Lady’s publisher extolled his organization’s commitment to journalistic independence “without fear or favor” and ultimately failed to pursue what the Post’s Bob Woodward called the “painful road of introspection.” In Sophocles’ ancient tragedy “Oedipus Rex,” young King Oedipus searches for his father’s murderer unaware that the man he seeks is none other than himself. So, even though Sulzberger’s perception of journalistic objectivity and independence is warranted and necessary for the industry, the other piece demonstrates that his own publication has failed to look in the mirror and recognize that they are, too, guilty of journalistic dependence, and do not always live up to their commitment to “only publish what we know; we would rather miss a story than get one wrong.”  

ps: There were many times in this reflection when I felt the need to clarify my own political allegiances. I think this is the product of the society we live in where an intense competition of us vs. them unravels, and where there are times that I think to criticize your own is to stand against them. But only through honest introspection, acceptance of mistakes, and correction can the media regain its trust among the public and strengthen liberal democratic trends.

I found the case for independent journalism extremely compelling.  I have not taken journalism courses previously and so much of what was discussed was new to me but I believe heavily relates to my major SPIA.  Much of our democracies pitfalls and triumph have been broken by independent news.  It is is an important part of our democracy.  When we see the limits of what our media and especially news can cover in other nations that is almost always a a warning sign of the limits of the rights of people within that nation.  While I understand that we can question objectivity in the face of who we are as humans and also in the rise of news coverage within say the last five decades I think it is still interesting to discuss independent journalism models.  I am a part of the Just Data Lab and we discussed at length the discrepancy between believing data is bias but even the collection of data is bias.  While data can mean many things I think this is reflected in the views of our media coverage. What we choose to cover is inherently bias in that we have picked to break this story.  I think the journalist does a good job pointing out that even if we can’t be objective, journalism can still be independent.

As I have mentioned before I think the compelling point of  journalism within our liberal democracy is really importnat and maintaining the legitimacy of these institutions to call out and cases of injustice are extremely necessary.  I would argue that in order to maintain a liberal democracy, a reputable and free journalistic institution is necessary.  Laws and the functions of our government are important to maintain our government and stop it from failing or limiting the rights of the people within it.  But a government that can maintain order that is necessary to its functions is also in danger of abusing that power.  Journalism is one way in which we can limit and call out the practices that make seek to limit the rights of the people.  We must guard ourselves against the guardians of our safety which in many cases is our government.  I would also argue that from many past examples this has always been the case.  Journalists reported on slum conditions and meatpacking industries at the beginning of the 19th century and then on watergate towards the end of it.  Journalism for its many sensationalist qualities over history has been important to giving an understanding to the public that can affect change.  Regardless of journalists not being the movers and shakers that create or implement laws that help our society to function.  It has always been key to inducing the change necessary to create these laws or bring them up in the first place.

I think the journalist is right to want to safeguard the models of the past.  And to ensure that independent journalism is able to continue.  It is an important facet of our liberal democracy and needs to continue.

This week’s article by Sulzberger centers around the notion of independent journalism and questions whether it is possible, at its core, to attain full objectivity when covering the tumultuous events of the modern day. We are urged to reexamine the very norms and practices of reporting at the time when American news credibility is reaching its all time low, which according to Jeff Gerth’s reports is a trend intertwined with society’s increased polarization. Having acknowledged the shifting role of media from a handful of outlets dictating the national agenda to an unmediated surge of internet content crafted for niche audiences and catering directly to their identities and passions, Sulzberger urges us to push back against unreliable journalism and strive for the objective and the impartial in this impossible pursuit. To this end, he lays out the four principles of independence in practice: prioritize the process over outcome, follow the facts, cover the uncertainty, and navigate criticism. Though great in theory, the set of rules proves to be too idealistic once pitted against reality.

Can journalists control their own biases and blind spots? A more diverse room and a more independent newsroom are often seen as mutually exclusive propositions. Do journalists from underrepresented backgrounds bring in new perspectives or are deeply biased? The fact that nobody comes as a clean slate casts doubt on the extent to which objectivity is feasible. Familiarity with the topic can give a sharper eye for nuance and a healthier dose of skepticism, but at the same time runs the risk of imbuing one’s reporting with personal preconceptions. It’s unclear whether the audience’s benefit from the former would outweigh the harm of the latter.

How do we differentiate between true independence and the perception of independence? In his piece, Sulzberger disparages what he calls “a pantomime of fairness”, more often than not manifested through “both-sidesism”, or false equivalence, where lazy journalists resort to equating opinions for the sake of coming across as impartial, clearly ignoring the fact that the sides are not equally credible. What are the practices that can be put into place to assess one’s writing against this pitfall?

Should news organizations publish information that might be misused? Covering all the facts and conveying ambiguity is often met with criticism when reporting deals with vulnerable communities and reveals a piece of information that can be used to perpetuate their marginalization. The duty to cover every group with utmost respect, nuance and sensitivity should come at no surprise, but it’s also true that no such group can be homogenous and therefore agree on how they should be presented. Under the same category of existential questions falls the debate around “platforming”, namely voicing the opinions of those who are considered dangerous by one group or another. How do we navigate the fine line between estimating the potential impact the reporting might have and censoring oneself?

In “Journalism’s Essential Value” A.G. Sulzberger explains why he believes it is imperative that journalist continue to uphold the value of “independence” in their reporting, also contentiously known as “objectivity.” His essay is arguably a response to a movement in journalism to “own up” to human bias and acknowledge that individual perspectives are, and should, be reflected in journalistic reporting. Those who espouse this belief claim that it is actually beneficial to include a journalist’s moral perspective in their writing and additionally, is only logical as humans are intrinsically biased and informed by their backgrounds. Sulzberger writes about his long history with the New York Times and how his great-great-grandfather founded the modern NYT on the principle of independent impartial journalism and against the popular (and more lucrative) sensationalist publications of the time period. He recognizes the mistakes and controversies that the NYT has found itself in, citing examples from their coverage of the Soviet Union to Iraq, but ultimately credits the publication’s dedication to independence as the value that has upheld its integrity through tumultuous times.

The press, Sulzburger writes, plays an important, and uncomplicated, role in society. It disseminates true information to the public. He cites correlation between “the world’s healthiest democracies and maps of the world’s freest press environments” as evidence of the press’ role as ensuring a free society. Therefore, there is all the more reason to continue the NYT’s position as an unbiased, truthful, and nuanced fountain of knowledge. When the NYT’s coverage is criticized, it is not so much that it was inaccurate, but rather that readers are concerned about the misuse of its published information. The NYT investigation in Rosenstein, and the subsequent pushback from the left about how this gives Trump the ability to fire Rosenstein, and end the Mueller investigation, is a perfect example of how a journalist’s role as disseminator of knowledge to promote a free society can be conflated with the fictional role of enforcing a free society.

It is not, and under no circumstances should be, the responsibility of a journalist to ignore a verifiable, independent, and important truth to achieve an ulterior goal. Journalists should not police how readers interpret or utilize the news. The consequence of such journalism leads to echo-chamber writing and preferential coverage that would not contribute to a free and democratic society. That form of journalism would only serve to further the agenda of whoever has the last say on what can and can not be published. Journalists should be on a mission to uncover the truth, and relay the truth to their readers. Doing so ensures that society can have a “shared reality” in which productive debate is possible.

Of course, this “shared reality,” promoted by objective journalism, can be made impossible to achieve if readers do not trust the publication. This is what the US has been experiencing for a few years. Both the right and left politics disbelieve what media that appears to promote or support the others’ politics. In this case, reality is not shared between readers which leads discourse to become a lofty goal, while democracy begins to become less stable.

Additionally, journalists and readers will argue that publishing the writings of, for example, terrorists or Nazis, can be dangerous and result in real harm. Also, that their publication, without explicit condemnation, basically equals an endorsement, or at least legitimization of those ideas. Sulzberger pushes back by saying he believes the censoring of unpopular ideas could also result in harm to a society.  Ultimately, it is Sulzberger’s belief that a society is better off if there is greater freedom of the press, more objectivity, and less censorship.

This is a sample post. To create your own, click the +New button in the black bar at the top of screen and select Post. When you are finished composing your post, click the blue Publish button.