The coloniality of representation and black African subjectivity
3.3. Journalism and the ideologies of professionalism and objectivity
80
rights; these exclusions, and thus citizenship as such, have historically been (en)gendered” (2016:
191). Citizenship is regarded as an “’institution’ mediating rights between the subjects of politics and the polity to which these subjects belong” (Isin and Nyers, 2014: 1). Magnette describes it as a “modern western idea” that grew out of the period between 1780 and 1830 paralleled by growth of “European orientalism” (2005: 105). Kamugisha has pointed to the “coloniality of citizenship”
as a “complex amalgam of elite domination, neoliberalism and the legacy of colonial authoritarianism” (2007: 20). We now turn to discuss journalism and the ideologies of professionalism and objectivity before tying them to the concept of the public sphere. This chapter will, in the last sections discuss, representation and subjectivity in depth as articulated to journalism under conditions of coloniality in the postapartheid moment.
81
1). Waisbord notes that in Asia and Africa, or across the world, there are “resemblances in the bureaucratic organization of “newswork,” the “statist” orientation of the news, the power and appeal of official sources, and the difficult working conditions” (2013: 1). Importantly, in both Asia and Africa “news focused on local and national events but followed conventional values that are common in the West. The ethics used and justified to make decisions about information- gathering and reporting were remarkably different” (Waisbord, 2013: 1). He further notes that
“news values, routines, complaints were no different than those common in the West yet production styles, ethics, working conditions, and visions of journalism were entirely different (Waisbord, 2013: 2). It is one of the contentions of this dissertation on the meaning of the globalisation of professional cultures of journalism and when it reached Africa. Waisbord (2013) notes that “journalists and scholars frequently refer to journalism as a “profession” in the sense of a job or occupation. Here, the journalists would be referring to “the practice of journalism without folding professionalism into particular normative or ethical aspects” (Waisbord, 2013: 3; see Chapman and Nuttall, 2011; Ward, 2010).
To the ethical approach to media professionalism, professionalism encompasses “a set of desirable virtues and principles – the model of quality reporting and the best journalism for democracy”
(Waisbord, 2013: 4). In this case “as difficult and elusive as it may be, the model of “professional journalism” is viewed in positive, normative terms” (Waisbord, 2013: 4). Here, professionalism is a conceptual category, a normative ideal, a narrative that reveals how journalism intersects with economic, political, social, and cultural forces that shape media systems” (Waisbord, 2013: 4).
However, there is a history to professional journalism. It arises at some specific point in history.
According to Hallin (1996), professional journalism, like other professions, has developed an ethic of public service. Waisbord notes that “just like any profession, journalism purports to serve citizens as clients” (Waisbord, 2013: 8 – 9). As an ideology, professionalism in journalism is seen as fulfilling three functions. First, it is seen as serving to control labour and reproduce the ideological status quo; second, it functions or supplies ‘strategic rituals’ used by journalists to claim legitimacy and defend themselves from any suspicion of subjectivity and favouritism; and third, it is seen as reinforcing social inequalities in access to public expression by favouring established powers with significant access to the news (Waisbord, 2013: 100; Carpentier, 2005;
Hardt, 2000; Ekecrantz, 1997: 397).
82
Objective journalism has been critiqued at three levels. First, the ideal of objectivity as the supreme ideal of professionalism is seen as imposing “a narrow view on reality and limits public debate to the views of powerful actors” (Waisbord, 2013: 100). This is because the practice of journalism is
“embedded in political and economic structures dominated by narrow interests” (Waisbord, 2013:
100). Here the critiques observe that claims to impartiality and detachment are located in a false narrative that wants to create the impression that news is reported from a vacuum and that it is all produced to serve public interest (Waisbord, 2013: 100). The fact that “journalism is firmly planted in the structure of capitalist media companies, it has obvious biases which are particularly salient in the coverage of issues and actors that question fundamental principles of capitalism” (Waisbord, 2013: 100). This critique of “professional journalism” reflects the broad Marxist critique of professions. Second, the communitarian critique of professional journalism argues that it undermines the idea of nurturing civic life by turning the press’ back to the public. This can be easily seen in sourcing patterns, as professional journalists prioritise elites and experts over citizens, whom communitarians see as the protagonists of democratic life (Waisbord, 2013: 101).
The building of journalism as a “fortress” (Nordenstreng 1998) separates expert from lay knowledge. This is profoundly antidemocratic for it doesn’t contribute to community dialogue and participation” (Waisbord, 2013: 103). Others see the professionalization of journalism as marking a shift from journalism as communication to information transmission (Waisbord, 2013: 103;
Glasser and Gunther 2005). The third critique of professional journalism draws its theoretical power from the work of Michel Foucault’s analysis. This critique “views professional journalism as a tool of governmentality, a technology of power in the service of the regime of truth”
(Waisbord, 2013: 104). For Waisbord, thought of from a Foucauldian analysis, “professionalism and its ideals (objectivity, fairness, public service) are discursive formations that serve to install a
“regime of truth” by which certain ideas are “normalized” and others are considered “deviant.”
Professionalism is not about the pursuit of truth but, rather, the affirmation of certain ideas as
“accepted truths,” imposing normal practices” (2013: 104). Thompson (1990) has argued that ideology is meaning in the service of power. According to Bratich, professional journalism is driven by a “will to moderation” which is seen in its dismissal and marginalization of critical ideas as “conspiracies” (2004: 43). Waisbord notes that “such a discursive strategy illustrates how mainstream journalism regulates expression and cements social control” (Waisbord, 2013: 104).
83