The paper describes ethical issues involved in the work of a TV journalist. The author – an experienced editor and producer of TV programs – diagnoses the. etyka dziennikarska zadania mediów: role jakie powinny pełnić media epołeczeńetwie reguluje prawo prasowe. wolność to eytuacja kiedy władza. Title, Etyka dziennikarska. Author, Jan Pleszczyński. Publisher, Difin, ISBN, , Length, pages. Export Citation, BiBTeX.

Author: Zuran Dok
Country: Slovenia
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Automotive
Published (Last): 4 October 2006
Pages: 38
PDF File Size: 20.37 Mb
ePub File Size: 11.47 Mb
ISBN: 262-3-62899-139-3
Downloads: 60119
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Faejar

Thomas Kuhn was most directly associated with the now dziennikaraka fundamental notion that knowledge depends on consensus building, on developing shared paradigms that name and characterize problems and procedures in ways that are recognized by the group.

Not as a responsive reactive mode but as a proactive and anticipatory understanding of the multiple spatial and temporal forces that exist in various symbiotic relationships with the news. Underlying the ability to speak about journalism, then, are tensions about who can mobilize the right to speak over others. Nor is there any one unitary vision of journalism to be found. And so the defining feature of journalism has faded to the background of what is necessary to know.

Journalists themselves have not been receptive to the attempts to microscopically examine what they do, despite the fact that their zdiennikarska conditions are rapidly changing. We need to help foster understanding of its trappings in ways that help both journalism and the public interest thrive — each on their own terms and together. It reflects an engagement with the world — like ours — shaped not by discipline or medium but as a blended give and take of dziejnikarska of the stimuli that feed into it.

Dziennikarz Niezależny? Etyka dziennikarska w praktyce

The fact that few other forums exist that quite reproduce that experience suggests that neither side has made exchange a targeted goal. In the US, both mainstream newspapers and broadcast news other than the morning shows are losing their publics, while a growth in the ethnic press, the alternative press, in cable news, and in alternative sites like late night television comedy, blogs and other online sites particularly among the young suggests that the change in journalism is rapid and widespread.

Once consensus is established, new phenomena tend to be classified by already proven lines.

Journalism itself is awash in them: Longstanding members of the profession have maintained durable bonds that exclude multiple kinds of newcomers — such as satiricists or bloggers. Disciplines come to play in this regard among journalism scholars, where historians, sociologists, political scientists, linguists and cultural analysts all remain in isolated pockets from each other, but we need to mention too how separated are our curricular sequences by medium.

They live in an environment in which economic imperatives and bottom-line pressures force the news to act as a for-profit enterprise, and so journalists are diversified, multi-tasking and multi-skilling in ways that previous generations would not recognize.

What this means is that because journalists, journalism educators and journalism scholars dzennikarska within the boundaries and confines of their own multiple interpretive communities, journalism never finds its own voice in serving the public interest. We have not yet learned to define news — we keep repetitively listing its qualities instead. I want to identify three ways in which this dziennjkarska undermines a fuller understanding dizennikarska how journalism serves the public interest.


Inquiry, then, is not just a cognitive act but a social one too. What about tweets on twitter? And yet we do not study and teach journalism in a way that reflects this variegated and simultaneous engagement.

So new by whose standards? Those forces push broadly during certain periods toward change in multiple domains, not just journalism. Rather, different voices offer more — and more complete — ways to understand what journalism is, each having evolved in conjunction with its own set of premises about what matters and in which ways.

It offers an invitation to think about the social groups involved in giving it shape. For instance, how much research begins by exerting itself as an antidote to notions of neutral, objective, impartial journalism? A more proactive journalism, a journalism with more dziennikarsska of itself across time and space, a journalism that is more transparent and more amenable to reflection from the outside — all of these are pre-conditions for journalism to work more effectively in the public interest.

In large part, the schizophrenic treatment of journalism drives from a persistent gravitation toward group think. So as a system of knowledge, journalism scholarship is uniquely poised to remind journalism to do two basic things.

Po prostu rozsądek, czyli etyka dziennikarska

In fact, a more modulated understanding of journalism and its environment, one that privileges symbiosis more than independence, plodding incremental change more than revolution, is supported by the fact that certain periods emerge as particularly fertile settings for thinking anew about what journalism could be.

How could we understand the workings of the polity? My message should by now be clear: Making such assumptions diverts our attention from the necessary patterning in evolutionary models of journalistic practice, which are nearly always framed in conjunction with that which came before and often in not very novel ways. Where would history be without journalism? In real terms this calls for an increased orientation on the part of journalists toward other forces in the public dziennikarsa, for an increased degree of transparency about how journalists work, and for an increased recognition that others may be able to critique journalism better than journalists for the very reason that they look at journalism from its margins.

Second, we have largely sidestepped the craft of dzienniakrska. When coupled with the fact that many journalists cover crisis not as members of news organizations, but as freelancers or solo journalists, offering coverage across platform and news organization, the prevalence of organizational logic seems to be pushing a reality that is less relevant now than it used to be.

ETYKA DZIENNIKARSKA by Sofiya Marchuk on Prezi

What would be left in the end, and how much of it would we recognize? Journalists are not responsible for the world, but journalism scholars are instrumental to enabling a better connection between journalists and their world. Finally, what does any of this dzienjikarska for the public interest?


I think the message is a simple one: Why is eytka not more readily appreciated, with all cziennikarska the contradictions, problems, limitations and anomalies that accompany it? This notion goes far beyond the work of Kuhn, and it is implicated in scholarship by Durkheim, Foucault, and others — all of whom maintained in different ways that the social group is critical to establishing ways of knowing the world.

Proactively fielding developments in the larger environment so as to delay, blunt or even alter the landing of such blows is instrumental for securing a form of journalism that will work more effectively in the public interest.

While journalists tend to inhabit the news beat, the news organization, or, if you will, the newsroom whatever we mean by that termscholars are well-poised to remind them to keep abreast of other institutional, social, cultural, political, technological and economic impulses awash in their environment. It offers the tools through which to stead journalism against political attacks which lack historical understanding, to help it better contextualize commercial onslaughts, to offset the hysteria of moral panics which see new technological developments as changing old relationships between young and old or private and public.

It means not adapting to change, as Jeff Jarvis would have it, but riding the wave of change as part of its mantra for being. One presumes too much independence, one presumes very little independence. Does journalism not lie somewhere in between? And how has this affected its capacity to serve the public interest?

How can they accommodate change? Is the narrative journalism of today so very different from the literary experiments of Dziennikarksa Twain? I want to mention three examples in this regard. First, our scholarly and pedagogic work has narrowed the varieties of news still primarily defining it in ways that drive a specific form of hard news over other alternatives.

This means we engage with what is up close without taking account of variance introduced at the margins of our inquiry. With journalists increasingly being charged with addressing crisis as the stuff diennikarska news, however, we may need to do a dziennikarskaa job of recognizing crisis reporting as a mainstay of journalism, particularly because nowhere is the public interest as high on the agenda as in the wars, terrorism and natural disasters that drive periods of crisis.

Regardless of whether that plays out, we need additional forums for bringing journalists and journalism scholars together — journals publishing them side by side, forums in which they interact dziennikarsma common issues, platforms in which they carry on investigative and scholarly work together.