How Information is Created?

Objectivity in Journalism

The issue of objectivity in the information conveyed has a very long tradition, as it dates back to over 2400 years ago. Even then, Thucydides began to seriously ponder whether it is possible to objectively report real events. He also noted that the same incidents are described and presented differently by different people. In 1982, in the book "Handwörterbuch der Massenkommunikation und Medienforschung," an attempt was made to define objectivity as presenting reality as it is. However, this was a flawed formulation, as no criteria were established that would indicate the truth of a given event, and consequently, its objectivity. The situation was different in socialist countries. There, objectivity equated to party affiliation, according to which what was deemed objective was that which aligned with the ideological assumptions of the party. Therefore, anyone who deeply believed in the then-power system exhibited objectivity. Of course, such an understanding of objectivity was a complete denial of its functionality and actually bore the marks of significant subjectivization.

In 1974, Ulrich Saxer conducted research on objectivity in several German newsrooms. The results were surprising. It turned out that a different kind of objectivity was presented by journalists reporting "on site," without leaving their workstations and only relying on phone conversations with those working in the field who were "face-to-face" with people and present where something was happening. Saxer observed greater credibility in the reports from the latter group because they based their accounts on statements from multiple sides of the conflict, presenting various viewpoints, which contributed to increasing the objectivity of the text. It must be remembered that the most important feature of objectivity is not succumbing to and not presenting the position of only one person, but many.

Alongside this, impartiality, freedom from manipulation, verification of the credibility of witnesses, and separation of information from commentary stand equally. In 1982, Gunter Bentel attempted to formulate the principles of objectivity - a crucial point of reliable journalism for many. Among these, he highlighted, among others, the versatility of presented opinions, objectivity, the use of neutral terms, meaning those devoid of valuation and emotional expressions that reveal the writer`s attitude toward the subject. Following him, Schneider and La Roche also sought to define objectivity. Only Franz Alt, a German television journalist, broke away from the thesis concerning the existence of objectivity. In his article titled "No Objectivity Exists, or How Only God is Objective," he wrote: "Objective is what pleases us and what we can use for our own purposes."

Subsequently, Patterson and Dombach conducted a survey among journalists in the USA, the UK, Germany, Italy, and Switzerland. All these countries unanimously labeled themselves as objective, which is untrue, as party influences are often visible among them, as the experimenters noted.

Research on Information Selection

The subject of research on information selection became the ways of controlling the content conveyed by the media. As early as 1947, Kurt Lewin introduced the concept of the gatekeeper, meaning someone who decides what will appear in a given newspaper issue or television report (e.g., editor-in-chief, edition editor, etc.). In 1950, White more precisely formulated the role of the selector, which gives control over the information: they can accept or simply reject it. However, such behavior can lead to dangers in journalism, which, by controlling the flow of information, may contribute to its limitation and reduced attractiveness.


Imagine that suddenly a new newspaper appears on the press market, whose editor-in-chief loves sensational news, so such stories are most prevalent within its pages. The first issue - we, as readers, react with enthusiasm because finally, someone openly talks about the mafia, thefts, robberies, etc. The second issue - the same, the third - fine, the fourth - maybe okay, but by the fifth and subsequent issues, we are already bored. Why? Because we dislike monotony or monogamy. Especially in the media.

A perfect example of information selection also consists of newspapers that utilize services from press agencies. It is evident that not every piece will be included in the upcoming edition or the next one. Nor will every piece become an extensive article, as it may only be a brief note. What, therefore, determines that some information makes it to the "front page," while others end up in the bin? According to researchers, the first consideration is the nature of the published paper, size (in the case of television or radio - the duration of the program or broadcast), followed by the preferences of the audience. Because it is they who have the greatest influence on the information; they decide what they want to hear, what they want to know, and what to omit, deeming it unimportant. It is also thanks to the audience that media have a chance to exist. Although, on the other hand, as Gieber stated, news is what the press people make of it, so it cannot be denied that journalists shape the image not only of the world but also of ourselves. Let us then move on to the next point.

Constructing Reality by Mass Media

There is no doubt that the media construct the world for us - the audience. However, we must also remember that most viewers, listeners, or readers do not have direct access to the majority of the issues discussed in the reports. For them, it is, of course, a factual reality, but a reality from a second hand.

Let us examine a certain event that was registered in their studies by Gladys & Lang. It concerns the return of Gen. MacArthur from Korea to Chicago. The media presented the entire welcome in an extraordinarily spectacular, showy, and ceremonial manner: full of flowers, tears, cheers, and shouts. In reality, as later revealed by eyewitness accounts, the general did not have such a grand ceremony, and on the contrary, it was far from the extravagance presented by the cameras, whose appropriate positioning (zooms, pulls, close-ups, details) plus the words of reporters created such an effect. Because the camera, as many of its users believe, chooses what is particularly dazzling. Thus, the impressions of the audience shaped by the reports in the media lead to a false perception of reality, which in turn influences individuals` attitudes towards the falsely perceived fragments of reality. This phenomenon was named the Landslide Effect and was recognized as a type of influence.

The Value of Information

In 1922, in "Public Opinion," Walter Lipmann stated that the value of information is determined by several factors contributing to its publication. First: the element of surprise, which can be associated with the popular headline today: "Only with us," meaning the attractiveness of the topic and its uniqueness. Second: geographical proximity. The closer events are to the reader, concerning their city, village, district, workplace, or the school their child attends, the greater the likelihood that they will be interested in this topic, that they will buy the newspaper, watch the program, or listen to the broadcast.

Schramm, in 1949, typologized information. According to him, it is divided into delayed and direct. The former includes: public affairs, the economy, the weather, science, and health, while the latter comprises: corruption, crime, accidents, sports, and entertainment. Nowadays, the media predominates with short-lived information, meaning that which tells what happened today, yesterday, or an hour ago. However, it exists for the moment and is quickly displaced by newer, more current information, "for now."


What, then, happens to those events of "long duration," what must happen for them to appear in media reality and consequently in ours? According to Roschco, "long-lasting processes belong to what is hidden at the foundations and are given external form when they become extraordinary events or concern a specific event." Simply put: when a Black man comes to Poland and is called "bamboo," "black monkey," and this happens every time, we already deal with racism, that is, an extraordinary event that, as a singular incident, means nothing, but in totality fulfills an important role. And a specific event? For example, the annual balance of rapes, accidents, murders, etc. (again not an episode, but a total!).

Yet, there remains one fundamental problem. What actually decides that a particular event becomes news? Galtung and Ruge, in "The Structure of Foreign News," identified twelve points that may help in understanding this phenomenon:

• transience
• intensity
• clarity
• importance
• conformity
• surprise
• continuity
• complementarity
• reference to elite nations
• reference to important personalities
• personalization
• negativity

The more events align with this "dozen," the more often they become information, and the more signals there are about an event, the greater the probability of reporting it (the hypothesis of additivity). If an event does not meet all 12 points, others must be stronger for it to become an event (the hypothesis of complementarity). These researchers, as a result of experiments conducted on information transmission about crises: Congolese, Cuban, and Cypriot, concluded that the lower the position of the individual, the more negative the character of the event, and the more distant the community, the more the reports pertain only to the elite. Rosengren disagreed with this statement, believing that it is not enough to compare information but also to use data not sourced from the media.

It has also been demonstrated that the greatest difference in information between actual events and media representations is evident during parliamentary elections or government changes.

Swedes conducted multi-stage research on information in radio. From 1925 to 1955, they observed that radio avoided controversial topics, did not express opinions - in a word, it was neutral, "hidden," "afraid." In 1965, everything changed: radio journalism began to be active and critical, and in the 1970s, it allowed information about murders and shocking brutalities on air.

Journalists and Informants

Informant: "an institution or person known to produce or possess news worth reporting." The higher the position of the informant, the better. This is the main reason why journalists care about contacts with influential individuals, who can not only provide an excellent topic but also attract audiences. This might also explain why Tunstall once said that: "Contact with the most important people and the associated knowledge of the most significant events is considered one of the most attractive aspects of journalism." And within the journalists themselves, a belief arises about being participants in important events, which is also related to the conviction that they can influence these events. They are invited to significant meetings by informants, which makes them feel special and important. However, on the other hand, it is not all that rosy, as this form of acquiring information means dependence on the external environment, a certain lack of autonomy. Journalists fear that their contacts with informants may be severed if the information is used contrary to their intent. The importance of relationships between them is evidenced by the example of the head of the press department, Hamman, who retained this position for 22 years, precisely because, as an informant, he collaborated excellently with journalists.

***
Literature:
T. Goban-Klas, Media i komunikowanie masowe, Warszawa-Kraków 2000
B. Ociepka, Komunikowanie międzynarodowe, Wrocław 2002
A.Zipfel, M. Kczik, Warszawa 2000