The Release isn't the Essence of Journalism |
In the midst of the corona outbreak that hit the world, an accurate source of information becomes a necessity for journalism. Release is one of the sources of information that can be accessed by journalists. Broadcasting of information sourced from the press release may be justified insofar as it is in the public interest and with due regard to the journalistic code of ethics. It is not surprising that large media continue to use the release as a source of information, although not as a primary source.
What's the release for?
The question should always be on the head of a journalist before making a decision to broadcast the release. Seems like an envelope (read: bribe), the release was not present without purpose. The party that broadcasts has a specific intention for the release to be broadcast by the journalist.
In general, there are three aspects of the background of release broadcasting. The first, the party who gave the release did put the public interest behind the statement they gave. They issued a statement to defend the public interest. This is the kind of broadcasting motif that should get a reasonable portion of the news. The interests of the giving party are not much different from the interests of the journalist who is a representation of the public.
Secondly, there are also parties providing releases to clarify information they find false that other parties have submitted. Their motive is more as a prosecution of the right of reply to convey the truth of their own version. And lastly, the release is provided simply by searching for popularity and unilateral benefits. In the latter case, the institution that delivered the release looks very vulgar in searching for a particular institutional or personal fault. Often the demands they convey are illogical and discredit certain institutions. There is always something to be sacrificed to gain popularity or personal gain.
The question arises, how journalists should treat the release they receive. A source from the corruption monitors in Aceh said the release was the initial information given to the media. Furthermore, the media crew must investigate to explore the truth behind the case.
Test the accuracy of information
Thinking like this should not come out of the speakers. The journalists should have understood that it requires accurate verification of data and information provided by various institutions. In his book The Elements Journalist, Bill Kovach & Tom Rosenstiel stated journalists should have a skeptical attitude towards the truth of the information they receive. Hence, one of the nine elements of journalism is It's essence is a discipline of verification.
Journalists rely on a professional discipline for verifying information. While there is no standardized code as such, every journalist uses certain methods to assess and test information to “get it right.” Being impartial or neutral is not a core principle of journalism. Because the journalist must make decisions, he or she is not and cannot be objective. But journalistic methods are objective (Source): American Press Institute.
Loading the whole of a release includes a violation of one of the elements of a journalist. But even more alarming, there are still many journalists who do not confirm the release they receive. This certainly violates journalist ethical code of article 1 and article 3 where Indonesian journalists are required to report on a balanced basis and always test the information.
In its development, confirmation is also inadequate when journalists follow up on a release they receive. In many cases, confirmations are made via the phone where there are a number of limitations in them that are detrimental to the accused. Think, most accused parties do not read the release in question. He only accepts information that has been filtered by journalists that there may be differences in understanding and interpretation. When the information is confirmed erroneously, the statement given by the accused party is also wrong.
That's the first. Second, the confirmed person does not have enough time to think in response. Often, in the midst of his busy life, he suddenly gets a call from a journalist. In conditions that do not support, he is "forced" to give statements or self-defense. No wonder then, the statements that were given to be polemical prolonged or denied the next day due to an impact that was never thought of.
The most frequent reason given by journalists in such circumstances is that it is not enough time to meet directly with the accused to confirm and show the release so that he has a thorough understanding. Deadlines are often the reason. In fact, in such circumstances journalists have given difficult choices for the accused party (self accomply).
How not, the release was made the work of a team of agencies who delivered with adequate thought in the language of the text. In the meantime, confirmation should be given within minutes in an atmosphere that may not be supported. The accused party has been treated unfairly in this regard.
Every day the media received releases from various agencies. Interestingly, a number of mainstream media no longer treat such releases as primary sources. In fact, not infrequently the release was only read at a glance and then forgotten because no more as a garbage information.
Naturally treated this way because the motivation of giving release only to expose the activities of certain institutions. Journalists are only treated as part of the public relations (PR) institution that delivers the release. Information that should go into the ad section, but we treat it as news.
As journalists we certainly do not want to be treated that way. I do not know if you want to develop journalism release as a new flow to complement the existing flow such as peace journalism, literary journalism, and so on.[]
The world press freedom day or MayDay in Lhokseumawe, Aceh, May 3, a few years a go.
