I believe that every perspective on a news story is equally important.
One cause for this belief is that some perspectives on an event may be biased, or prejudiced in favour of one side. Not only is this against our human rights set by the United Nations, this can also have disastrous effects in the real world, because for example, if the views of a majority are discriminatory against a minority and they are taken into account, they will outnumber the views of the persecuted minority, which is highly unfair. If you think about it logically, as well, these are the views that are most likely to be heard. After all, a minority is a minority for a reason.
If both sides of the situation are not represented, people will not help the minority affected, because the news will have presented the majority's belief as the only one: thus giving a biased perspective.This is applicable to Myanmar: although the Rohingya perspective, within the borders, the Buddhist majority can see their side of the situation and the Rohingyas can only see their side. This is biased.
Furthermore, understanding all the sides of a story can help experts to analyse a situation, its causes and possibles outcomes. In war-ridden countries or divided governments, knowing every perspective can help people understand how to defuse rivalries and find out what must happen to aid the situation. In Myanmar, if every citizen knew the Rohingya perspective, perhaps they would sympathise with them and pressure the government to stop the persecution. The president of Myanmar (Win Myint)has been fairly quiet about the situation, leaving the blame to fall on Aung San Suu Kyi and trying to escape the peoples blame. I am wondering if that approach would work. The people must be open-minded enough to educate themselves about what's happening.
However, I do understand why some people say not every perspective should be shown. Racist, homophobic and sexist perspectives might not be worth showing at all, because of how damaging and offensive they are. Should views of prejudice be represented? I am sceptical of this.
Personally, the key to un-biased reporting is to first display every aspect of an event, both perspectives and all the facts. When learning the majority view on Rohingyas, and then the view of the Rohingyas themselves; it’s easy to see who's morally right, because people with discriminating views don't do good things . Therefore, if you present all the facts, the right decision can be made by the readers/viewers. People are usually capable of assessing the facts and making an educated decision based on them. Your job as a reporter is to make sure they have all the necessary information.
In conclusion, every perspective must be shown to gain a full picture of the news events, however all perspectives must be shown as equal, otherwise the benefits of showing them are lost.
Where I have used BNC skills-
*Curiosity- I questioned the approach to the Rohingya persecution, and suggested an alternative.
*Reasoning- I presented clear arguments with examples.
*Open-mindedness- I showed the other side of the argument to balance my post.
*Scepticism- I showed my reasons for being unsure of the other side of the argument, and I questioned their statements.
*Story-telling- I gave examples to clarify my points.