the fly on the wall

Reading Lillian Ross's book Reporting Back: Notes on Journalism, I came across a phrase I have not heard or read in a long time: "fly on the wall," a technique used in journalism.

Journalists were once thought of as flies on the wall -- that is, passive, impartial observers and documenters who report what they observe and see from the scene of a news event. Do such journalists still exist? Is this technique still effective?

Ross thinks that it is "craziness" to think of journalism in this way, and to teach would-be journalists to use this technique.

A reporter doing a story can't pretend to be invisible, let alone a fly; he or she is seen and heard and responded to by the people he or she is writing about; a reporter is always chemically involved in a story.

The job of the media has long ceased to be that of a mere fly on the wall. I don't know how journalism is taught in other schools, but our instructors never told us to be flies on the wall. They taught us to be active -- to engage both subject and audience, and to anticipate and ask the questions that our audience might ask.

In teaching us that reporting is all about being the public's eyes and ears, Dr. Eric Loo, head of the University of Wollongong Graduate School of Journalism, used the acronym ORACLE. A journalist's job, he says, is to observe, reflect and report, analyze, contextualize, learn, and enlighten.

I prefer the ORACLE framework of reporting, but I don't think Dr. Loo meant it to mean that journalists are supposed to know it all. There might be some "mysticism" to the fly on the wall technique, in a Zen sort of way -- and I have no doubt there are situations when it might be needed and it might actually work as well. But it seems to be a one-dimensional approach to a very complex job.

Observation is integral to a journalist's role, but it doesn't end there.