John Eligon thoughtfully and eloquently explained the need to combat hate speech through objective journalism. Objectively, hate speech is immoral and oppose basic human values that our society runs by. Eligon said to “make sure you let reporting take a stance for you.” A good journalist will report a story through their lens, however, not with the addition of their obvious opinion. The story that said journalist is reporting will ultimately pan out to contextualize the problem at hand, while simultaneously allowing the reader to understand the moral implications of an issue.
Eligon recounted his experience reporting at a Neo-Nazi festival in Germany as a black man. He mentioned a moment at this time in which a man on stage “pulled his shirt back that says ‘White Power.’” He proceeded to explain that rather than infusing his personal opinion into the piece, the reader can contextualize from this observation alone. They can understand the history of rhetoric that relies on taunting and intimidation at these rallies. Eligon didn’t state the meaning of this action verbatim, but he successfully showed the problematic mindset of a group of people.
It is important to report on hate speech in a responsible and ethical way: by condemning hate speech. Eligon’s descriptive writing may be more subtle than most, as his opinion isn’t always stated word-for-word. However, he let’s the reader know that there is a problem going on. He takes quotes from witnesses on the scene, specifically in his article titled “Fact Paint, Balloons and ‘White Power’: German Neo-Nazis Put on a Pretty Face.” One witness states: “At the very least, the music and the speeches indirectly encourage hate and contempt for certain people.”
Eligon stressed the importance of objective reporting and the potential to empathize with whomever he is reporting on. Getting the truthful facts is an imperative part of journalism, so this must be why Eligon mentioned it so often in his lecture. David Halberstam emphasizes this point as well in his journalistic experience in the Congo during the 1960s. His stance on journalism was that it must engage with uncertainty by taking something cloudy and unclear and then “penetrate through the haze” (Seyb, R. P. 2017). This empathetic approach isn’t necessarily validating the immorality that is being reported, rather, it is giving the reader context — as Eligon mentioned throughout his lecture: objectivity provides context. Halberstam’s philosophy reminded me a lot of what Eligon was describing during his lecture. He once stated “I think a reporter should be able to see outside himself, if possible cast away his prejudices, not only as a Yankee in Tennessee, or an Alabamian in New York, or even an American in the Congo, though this be important, but simply as an observer watching a scene. I think he must try to understand what it is like for the participants in any scene, yet know when and how to remain properly detached” (Seyb, R. P. 2017).
Works Cited
Eligon, J. (2018, September 26). Face Paint, Balloons and ‘White Power’: German Neo-Nazis Put on a Pretty Face. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/26/world/europe/germany-far-right-neo-nazi.html?rref=collection/byline/john-eligon&action=click&contentCollection=undefined®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=3&pgtype=collection
Seyb, R. P. (2017). Young man and war: David halberstam’s empathetic reporting during the congo crisis. Journalism History, 43(2), 75-85.