Imam Ibnu Aziz_SMA AL AZHAR MANDIRI PALU_Video1 — Transcript

Full transcript

1. 0:24Starting in three,
2. 0:26two,
3. 0:27one. The norm of neutrality journalism
4. 0:30>> that like covers like both of the both
5. 0:31of the like opinions would ultimately be
6. 0:33problematic with in the current status
7. 0:34quo where it distorts the information
8. 0:36and news within society that is
9. 0:38ultimately going to be very important
10. 0:39that is ultimately going to be very
11. 0:41important. We say that we need to regret
12. 0:42this like like like neutrality
13. 0:45journalism. That is why we propose
14. 0:46panels. Three points of setup to
15. 0:48actually make this debate clearer than
16. 0:49firstly, what do we mean by
17. 0:51neutrality journalism that covers like
18. 0:53both sides of opinions, right? We feel
19. 0:54like this is when the situation with
20. 0:56this is when the situations or conflicts
21. 0:58or issues and etc. where ultimately the
22. 1:00journalists who are expected to like are
23. 1:02expected to ultimately cover both sides
24. 1:04of like opinions. For example, both
25. 1:05sides of opinions with evidence, with
26. 1:07objectivity and etc. and etc. It looks
27. 1:09like them covering supporters of like
28. 1:11policy makers, for example. It looks
29. 1:13like them com-
30. 1:14looks like them covering opponents
31. 1:15between the
32. 1:16covering opponents within democracy like
33. 1:18the Democratic and the Liberal Party and
34. 1:20etc. What does that manifest into
35. 1:22panels? We say that the issue is like
36. 1:23climate change, for example. Not only
37. 1:25are you going to like not only are you
38. 1:26going to select cover like cover like
39. 1:28the climate activists and climate
40. 1:30supporters, for example, but you also
41. 1:32but you also like need to take a deep
42. 1:34dive towards the people who do not
43. 1:36support climate change or like vaccines
44. 1:38vaccine scientists. You need
45. 1:40You That is not the only person that is
46. 1:41going to be like covered within within
47. 1:43this information, but it but like
48. 1:45anti-vaxers would ultimately be
49. 1:48anti-vaxers would ultimately like be
50. 1:50also covered within within like this
51. 1:52within this neutrality journalism. Then
52. 1:54secondly, what is what is this
53. 1:56regretting look like under side
54. 1:57proposition? We say that it does not
55. 1:59essentially remove this like neutrality
56. 2:00journalism whatsoever, but I feel like
57. 2:02what's going to happen under our side of
58. 2:03the house is that we're going to be
59. 2:04discouraged is that we're going to
60. 2:06discourage this method, right? But then
61. 2:08society would also not glorify and also
62. 2:10not expect this kind of like journalist
63. 2:12to ultimately become neutral and cover
64. 2:13both sides. But then thirdly, what is
65. 2:15our counterfactual then panels? I feel
66. 2:16like our counterfactual would ultimately
67. 2:18want these journal journalists at the
68. 2:19end of the day to present information
69. 2:21based on supporting factors with quality
70. 2:24evidence with in society that is going
71. 2:26to be based on reality and like based on
72. 2:28reality that is ultimately going to be
73. 2:30tampered with in within society. It
74. 2:32looks like us It looks like us
75. 2:34supporting the vaccines for example. It
76. 2:35looks like us also covering covering
77. 2:38climate climate change and etc. Or like
78. 2:40it looks like us about Nadiem Makarim
79. 2:42for example. We're also going to support
80. 2:44support him and how he was wrong with in
81. 2:46this like journalism at the end of the
82. 2:47day. Two points of proof under side of
83. 2:49side proposition. Firstly, whether or
84. 2:51not journal
85. 2:52neutrality journalism distort distort
86. 2:55information within society and secondly,
87. 2:56how legitimizes misleading information
88. 2:59within society and why is that harmful.
89. 3:00First layer First argument coming from
90. 3:02side proposition. It distorts the
91. 3:04information within society. First layer
92. 3:06under justification. Panels, let's
93. 3:07contextualize exactly what is this world
94. 3:09What What is this world that we're
95. 3:11living in with with that information?
96. 3:13Because I feel like not because I feel
97. 3:14like not all information should
98. 3:16ultimately be covered within society
99. 3:18should ultimately covered be covered
100. 3:19within like journalism at the end of the
101. 3:21day. Especially if we're talking about
102. 3:23topics that are if we're talking about
103. 3:25topics that is ultimately going to be
104. 3:26problematic within society that is
105. 3:28ultimately have this kind of evidence to
106. 3:30prove against them, right?
107. 3:32To prove against them. What is
108. 3:33ultimately going to be proven factual
109. 3:35that this is like just wrong and this is
110. 3:37like just harmful within society. How
111. 3:39neutrality journalism works under side
112. 3:40of opposition, it means that it's
113. 3:42supposed to be accurate. It's supposed
114. 3:44to be objective. It's supposed to cover
115. 3:46both sides and cover like both evidence
116. 3:48at the end of the at the end of the day.
117. 3:49It means that you're covering evidence
118. 3:51against
119. 3:52other
120. 3:53it means that you're covering evidence
121. 3:54within like anti-vaccines for example,
122. 3:56climate change, people who do not
123. 3:58support climate change, or people who
124. 3:59support the theory that the earth is
125. 4:01flat and etc. We say this is harmful
126. 4:03because it distorts the already believe
127. 4:05the already like soft belief within
128. 4:07society because now society is not going
129. 4:10to be able to tell which sides are we
130. 4:11supposed to support within the
131. 4:13because society is not actually able to
132. 4:15differentiate which sides are we going
133. 4:17are we supposed to support as a like
134. 4:19functioning member of society at the end
135. 4:20of the day. They're going to think which
136. 4:22side is going to which side of the
137. 4:24policy making for example should we
138. 4:25support? Should we support the
139. 4:27Democratic Party? Should we support the
140. 4:28Liberal Party and etc. Where there's
141. 4:31already where there's already different
142. 4:32viewpoints at the end of the at the end
143. 4:33of the day. Society is where like it is
144. 4:36already where society is already like
145. 4:38different and different at the end of
146. 4:40the day. Society is ultimately going to
147. 4:42be more segregated more segregated
148. 4:44because of this like very factual
149. 4:45because of this like neutrality
150. 4:46journalism at the end of the at the end
151. 4:48of the day. But then second layer there
152. 4:50second layer there
153. 4:52if opposition comes in and say that
154. 4:53inside inside like this is like this is
155. 4:55we want to support diverse opinions or
156. 4:57like society is the one that is able to
157. 4:58choose that is able to choose what is
158. 5:00like normalized and what is good within
159. 5:02what is like good information at the end
160. 5:03of the day. Panels I feel like I feel
161. 5:06like it is just for us to make
162. 5:07journalists to choose which issue is
163. 5:10supposed to be like put up within
164. 5:11society as supposed to be like covered
165. 5:13within society. Which issue which issue
166. 5:15would ultimately like be good for
167. 5:17society to actually internalize within
168. 5:19them for within them. Because again
169. 5:21they're professionals. They have a whole
170. 5:22body and they have a whole team against
171. 5:24them they have a whole team with them to
172. 5:27get this kind of evidence and to get
173. 5:28those kind of information about issues
174. 5:30like Nadi Maccari for example where
175. 5:31journalists are getting information
176. 5:33where journalists are getting our
177. 5:35journalists are the one that is getting
178. 5:36information information where like to
179. 5:38like put up evidence about like Nadi
180. 5:40Maccari not society at the at the end of
181. 5:42the day. We say it is their
182. 5:43responsibility to present information
183. 5:45that is ultimately going to be good
184. 5:46within society and should not blur the
185. 5:49and should not blur the lines between
186. 5:50harmful narrative between harmful
187. 5:52harmful harmful news and like good news
188. 5:54at the end of the day. What is our
189. 5:55comparative then? I feel like it is our
190. 5:56comparative when we do not glorify this
191. 5:58like the neutrality journalism. It means
192. 6:00that we create a distinct flat
193. 6:02distinct flat where for the general
194. 6:05society to follow. It looks like them
195. 6:07follow it looks like them ultimate it
196. 6:08looks like us covering
197. 6:10only covering news about like vaccines
198. 6:12and saying that this is good and not
199. 6:13like the government tactic for example.
200. 6:15Or like it looks like us supporting it
201. 6:17looks like us supporting climate
202. 6:18activists who are who are trying to like
203. 6:21who are trying to gain momentum within
204. 6:22society.
205. 6:23Second argument then coming from side
206. 6:25and it is ultimately
207. 6:27ultimately going to be good for society
208. 6:29because it's like this is what this is
209. 6:31what like good information that is going
210. 6:33to be prominent within within society at
211. 6:36the end of the day. Second argument
212. 6:37coming from side opposition. How it
213. 6:38legitimizes the misleading information
214. 6:40within society and why is it harmful?
215. 6:42First layer then. How does this actually
216. 6:44happen panels? I feel like firstly let's
217. 6:46contextualize exactly what does
218. 6:47misleading information actually look
219. 6:49like. It looks like
220. 6:50looks like anti-vaccines distributing
221. 6:53information about saying that this is
222. 6:54the like vaccines is ultimately the
223. 6:56government tactic for to control
224. 6:58society. It looks like people who do not
225. 7:00support climate change saying that this
226. 7:01is not saying that this is not like this
227. 7:03is not not true and etc. and etc. That
228. 7:06is what the misleading information that
229. 7:08is already spreading within society. But
230. 7:09then how exactly this misleading
231. 7:11information would ultimately be worse on
232. 7:13the side opposition. It legit on the
233. 7:15side on the side opposition. We said
234. 7:17that when neutrality journalism happens
235. 7:18on the side opposition, it legitimizes
236. 7:20this kind of information. Exactly why?
237. 7:22Because firstly that it is ultimately
238. 7:24going to be backed up like evidence that
239. 7:26is going to be the ultimately going to
240. 7:27be objective, right? But then I feel
241. 7:29like the second impact the second impact
242. 7:31that is more important that is more like
243. 7:32more the second likelihood
244. 7:34is that society, especially people who
245. 7:36are in the gray area, are going to
246. 7:37perceive this that they're going to
247. 7:39believe that like this kind of like this
248. 7:41kind of misleading information is
249. 7:43something that is is that is very
250. 7:45truthful. They're going to internalize
251. 7:47that this that this kind of like
252. 7:48misleading information comes from the
253. 7:50New York Times for example, comes from
254. 7:52like WhatsApp Indonesia, comes from the
255. 7:54Kompas TV and etc. They're going to
256. 7:56interpret this into like going to
257. 7:58interpret this to saying that this is
258. 7:59like truth of like that kind of
259. 8:01information saying that
260. 8:03truth information and etc. When news
261. 8:05coverage and news outlets automatically
262. 8:07news coverage and news outlets
263. 8:08ultimately cover this kind of misleading
264. 8:09information society is going to think
265. 8:11that this is like this kind of
266. 8:12information is credible and this is like
267. 8:14something that is very important for us
268. 8:16to like talk about like talk about
269. 8:17right? But then second layer then, why
270. 8:18is this harmful then panels? I feel like
271. 8:20it is harmful because this like
272. 8:21journalism and news is what is
273. 8:23ultimately what is society depends on to
274. 8:25make decisions within their life. We're
275. 8:26talking about policy makers. We're
276. 8:28talking about politicians at the end of
277. 8:29the day. But then why under our side of
278. 8:31the house are we still able to become
279. 8:33more journalism fair under our side of
280. 8:35the house because I feel like that's
281. 8:36what going to that's what is going to be
282. 8:37said on the side of the opposition. I
283. 8:38feel like it's going to be fair because
284. 8:40of the process that
285. 8:41that we have already talked about where
286. 8:42it's ultimately going to be ultimately
287. 8:44going to firstly going to be objective
288. 8:46but it's ultimate
289. 8:47but because of the amount of evidence
290. 8:49it's not it's not going amount of
291. 8:50evidence and the process is ultimately
292. 8:52going to be good and also
293. 8:54and the
294. 8:55the profession and the professional
295. 8:56journalism would journalism would
296. 8:58ultimately be able to see what is being
297. 9:00good within society under all those
298. 9:02reasons prior to propose.