Different newsrooms have diverse rules and practices on internal pluralism. A large majority of interviewees suggested that there were internal debates on how the news should be presented, but some interviewees said that they were unable to go against the opinions of their supervisors. Most of the interviewees indicated that they made a serious effort to present the voices of experts or actors from different perspectives; at least half of the interviewees, however, admitted it was difficult to achieve an internal plurality of voices practically. First, some indicated that their interview invitations were often rejected. Second, there was self-censorship in media organisations, with one interviewee expressing the view that seeking balanced viewpoints is abnormal in a political story (but not necessarily in a non-political story). In another example of self-censorship, one media outlet maintains a blacklist of pro-democracy experts who are banned from interviews. Third, some interviewees who work in organisations aligned with a certain party or ideology indicated that – while they were free to use information and views from the other side in the course of their reporting – the final product was subject to cuts and edits to bring it in line with the organisation’s ideology. Fourth, most respondents admitted they were rarely able to seek out new voices due to tight editorial deadlines.
Menu
