# journalism of attachment



## nickel (Nov 23, 2009)

*Journalism of Attachment:* an approach to reporting, born of the war in former Yugoslavia, which argues that journalists should record the human and emotional costs of war rather than acting as ‘transmission vehicles’ for governmental or military sources (Bell, 1996). The Journalism of Attachment argues that “reporters cannot remain detached or neutral in the face of modern evils like genocide in Bosnia or Rwanda, but must side with the victims and demand that something-must-be-done” (Hume, 1997: 4). This mantle has been taken up by various reporters - Martin Bell who coined the term (1998), Ed Vulliamy, Maggie O’Kane, Johnathon Steele in the UK, Roy Gutman in the US - and is summarised impeccably by Christiane Amanpour of CNN: 
I have come to believe that objectivity means giving all sides a fair hearing, but not treating all sides equally. Once you treat all sides the same in a case such as Bosnia, you are drawing a moral equivalence between victim and aggressor. And from here it is a short step to being neutral. And from here it’s an even shorter step to becoming an accessory to all manners of evil (from _Quill _(April, 1996) cited in Hume, 1997: 6)​Thus, the rejection of journalistic neutrality is justified as a consequence of a moral imperative to stand up to wickedness which its proponents see as an indispensable aspect of good journalism (Tumber & Prentoulis, 2003). To adopt the familiar canine metaphor, the attached journalist is a kind of Guide Dog, leading not only the gaze of the audience but also their understanding of, and emotional response to, the story.

The movement has not been without its critics. First, ‘attached reporting’ depends upon conflicts being depicted as battles between the ‘Good’ and ‘Bad’, and calls upon journalists to appoint themselves as judges of who to cast in these two polarised roles. On this point, McLaughlin (2002) argues that attached journalism encourages unacceptable self righteousness and moralising. Second, once ‘guilt’ is established, a journalist’s responsibility to print all the facts may “come a poor second place to broadcasting what is considered to be the morally correct line” (Hume, 1997: 4). Thus, uncorroborated stories from the ‘good guys’ may be reproduced blindly due to their adherence to accepted/acceptable truths, whilst the unthinkable (regardless of factuality) is avoided.

Third, we must look not only at the problematic issues related to journalists acting as moral arbiters, but also their demands of ‘something must be done’. What type of ‘something’ does attached journalism demand? With wars being reduced to clash between the forces of Good and Evil, “it becomes easy to turn the West into the political saviour of the ‘uncivilised’ world and to demand more [military] intervention against the forces of darkness” (Hume, 1997: 15). From such a perspective, Tumber and Prentoulis’ suggestion that the events of 11 September 2001 have accelerated “a trend in which attachment and emotion eventually become fully embraced into the culture of journalism” (2003: 228) sounds like a worrying prospect.​
Έχει πάρει το μάτι σας κάποιον όρο για αυτή τη «μη αποστασιοποιημένη» δημοσιογραφία, του «συναισθηματικού δεσίματος»;


----------



## drsiebenmal (Nov 23, 2009)

Μα δεν είναι μια ειδική μορφή στρατευμένης δημοσιογραφίας; Να την πει κανείς μανιχαϊστική;


----------



## nickel (Nov 25, 2009)

Μανιχαϊστική, πολύ άσπρο-μαύρο. Και το «στρατευμένη» είναι πιο δυνατό από το απλό συναισθηματικό δέσιμο, τη «μη ουδετερότητα», το να μη μένεις αμέτοχος.


----------

