News sources I look to in times of crisis

During times of crisis, my first instinct is to look at sources that I go through on daily basis, which is normally the Washington Post and the New York Times. I mainly reference the online editions but try to stick to articles that are featured within the print edition. With both crisis coverage and news that is more "everyday" I enjoy the Time's and Post's photo slide shows because they act as a seamless extension of the natural format of print journalism. Even with all the multi-media developing, I still strongly believe that a picture can be worth 1000 words.

I have found that during times of crisis I will watch broadcast journalism while regularly I pretty strictly stick to print. This past week, I have been watching coverage of Haiti on CNN and  ABC. I think that film is the closest representation of reality that we have and during moments of almost unfathomable events it is important to allow yourself to face the reality of what is actually going on. Video allows you to more closely experience the chaos, panic, momentum or whatever adjectives describe the situation yet cannot be put into words.

During times of crisis, I think I look at the same sources because I believe the NYTimes, Post, CNN etc.  uphold strong ethical guidelines and therefore are reliable. For example, I do not question the context or accuracy of stories I read on the Times. Furthermore, I assume that they are probably provide the most clarity on the issue. When I receive any type of news through an "unreliable" source, be it social media or interpersonal communication, I find myself referencing the same sites because I believe that they naturally uphold these ethical guidelines.

However, outside of clarity, reliability, context, and relevance, I think I look at these sources on a day to day basis becuase I assume they have very objective reports.

Interestingly enough, broadcast has proven over the years to flirt with the line of objectivity, especially in regards to a reporters level of emotion and personal investment in the story. In print journalism, the editing process provides a thick line between opinion and news and the reporter is still held under fairly clear ethical guidelines. However, multiple occasions have tested the broadcast journalist's ability to maintain a objective distance from the crisis.

Today a friend and I were discussing Anderson Cooper and his reputation for intervening in his subject. However, during these times of crisis, you have to wonder if the need for no-emotion objectivity is still crucial or even effective? The news media must keep in mind that during instances such as 9/11, the videos being shown to the public are shocking, heart-wrenching, disturbing and to show no-emotion seems to almost separate one's self from the people to whom you are reporting. Looking back on historical moments where objectivity has been thrown to the wind, it has had serious political effects. For example, when Walter Cronkite spoke against the Vietnam war. Is the role of the journalist during crisis the same as during everyday news?

When looking at a political commentator such as Keith Olbermann who, in my opinion, provides good context but is subjective in his reporting (see his recent countdown on the Supreme Court's decision regarding Proposition 8, in which he said it was the end of democracy), audiences still are informed after his show but probably tune in to hear mass media outlets expressing their concerns.

It is very difficult to make an argument for abandoning objectivity during crisis. However, I think that nature of crisis provides a space for us to examine the purpose of the ethical guidelines that we so strongly associate with good journalism. It could be possible that what works 90% of the time with everyday news is not as crucial as other forms of journalism during crisis.