28 May Can Journalism be objective? – Journalism and Society
Objectivity
Research Question: Can Journalism be objective?
Answering this question, my essay will focus on working journalists and whether and how they aim for objectivity. As broadcasting is regulated in the UK, this discussion will concentrate primarily on print and online media.
This essay will use a definition of objectivity developed by Calcutt and Hammond (2011) as this would be recognised by most working journalists. They outline three ‘distinct’ yet ‘interrelated’ concepts that objectivity in journalism can be referred to. Firstly, fulness which is simply ‘reporting factually accurate information’. Secondly is neutrality which is the sense of ‘fairness and balance’ and ‘seeks to be impartial and unbiased’ when reporting, as well as when there is a ‘conflicting interpretation of an event’, different viewpoints are presented ‘even-handedly’. Lastly is detachment which is a ‘dispassionate approach’ that tends to separate ‘facts from comment’ and enables the audiences to ‘make up their minds about events rather than offered a journalist’s own response’.
There are broadly three main areas which influence the way journalists think about and approach objectivity in their daily lives.
The first area that will be analysed is ‘Training and the practice of journalism’, all journalists are taught different news values that they have to incorporate into their training.
Many critiques make the argument that “the routines of professional journalism are mere convention and have little to do with actually achieving objective knowledge about the world.” (Calcutt and Hammond, 2011). A famous example of this is Gaye Tuchman’s critique that journalistic objectivity is a “strategic ritual”. With the practice of “the judicious use of quotation marks” which is supposed to remove journalist from the story and let the facts speak. However, Tuchman argues that by choosing quotes, journalists are bringing in their own opinions and angles on the story.
Arguing that the rituals are more ‘strategic’ as they don’t aim to achieve objectivity but simply to protect the journalist against bias (Calcutt and Hammond, 2011). Tuchman also criticises the process of choosing and using journalistic sources:
“Mass media news professionals, from the boardroom to the beat, tend to ‘index’ the range of voices and viewpoints in both news and editorials according to the range of views expressed in mainstream government debate about a given topic” (Bennett 1990).
Many studies have supported this argument, often in the case of foreign policy, war and intervention. “Opinions voiced in news stories came overwhelmingly from government officials” with the public being treated with “nearly total neglect” (Bennett 1990).
Journalists are taught to separate opinions from facts, when they are writing journalistic pieces, they are told they must base everything they write on facts that they have researched and verified. Hallin (1989) critiques this approach by saying that;
‘Most of the reporting, in the best tradition of objective journalism, “just gave the facts.” But they were not just any facts. They were official facts.’ (Hallin 1989)
He continues on by saying that it must be ‘almost dead-pan’ and that journalists shouldn’t include anything that isn’t documentable or a quotable fact. Giving the example that if the president were to say “Black is white” you would write “The president said black is white.” (Hallin 1989).
Dennis (1984) suggests, that objective journalists gather facts and opinions that conflict with one another, they make sure that they authenticate the information, try to determine why there is conflict, which most likely reflects reality and evaluate and identify sources (Ryan 2009). Adding onto this, objective journalists;
“realize that people and events are multifaceted and extremely complex. Simple descriptive ‘tags’ will not do; a person is far more than a ‘liberal’ or a ‘conservative,’ than a ‘professor’ or a ‘legislator’” (Merrill & Lowenstein, 1979).
Koertge (1996) has a similar critique, suggesting that the process for the journalists, starting at the story selection, onto collecting the information and then the news distribution, is completely independent ‘of acknowledged personal idiosyncrasies or preferences. (Koertge 1996).
The second area which influences the way that journalists approach objectivity is ‘management’, journalists constantly have people standing behind their backs, telling them how to do their job.
“Objectivity in journalism or science does not mean that all decisions do not have underlying values, only that within the ‘rules of the game’ a systematic attempt is made to achieve an impartial report.” (Dennis 1984)
Dennis also suggests that journalists’ make “strategic decisions” which aren’t based on the reporter’s personal preference, but on “professional norms”;
“that is, the reporter consistently seeks the most informed, qualified, forthcoming source available to address each side” (Dennis 1984)
Gaber (2008) suggests something similar, outlining two points, related to management which unconsciously affect the way that journalists report.
“They also have an ingrained sense of ‘professional’ values and expectations which colour the way they go about their work.” (Gaber 2008)
“They also have bosses who have expectations of what they require.” (Gaber 2008)
Gaber (2008) supports this by giving an example of a reporter who has to cover a political party conference. Firstly, she could be placed into a team or a specific debate at the event, meaning that for her to “report what he or she regards as the most important event/s of the day, is severely limited”. Secondly, there is ‘the editorial line of paper’ which is considered, deciding which stories are of interest. Thirdly, there is the “prevailing mood of ‘today’s story’ – ‘Labour in disarray’, or whatever – that colours news judgements.” (Gaber 2008).
The last area that will be discussed is ‘the lives of journalists.’ Journalists are people too, they have personal lives and families and this is bound to create some form of bias within their writing.
Gaber (2008) discusses how this unconsciously affects the way journalists report;
“It must surely be self-evident that objectivity is, and has always been, a meaningless concept. This is because all journalists – subject to official confirmation – are human beings. That means they have a gender, an ethnicity, a family, a social background, a personal history, a set of prejudices etc. etc. that afflict us all.” (Gaber 2008)
“Every attempt by journalists to argue that they are able to put aside their own beliefs, feelings etc. and become, or aspire to become, genuinely ‘objective’, strengthens a dangerous canard.” (Gaber 2008)
Gaber (2008) mentions that journalists who believe they have reached ‘Olympian objectivity’ are stepping into dangerous waters as they will fail to see ‘how their own conscious and unconscious motivations are affecting how they report.’ (Gaber 2008).
Some journalists have a more relativist view on the matter. Arguing that absolutes do not exist in knowledge, morals or values; that objectivity is not achievable and that it’s not a useful goal (Ryan 2009).
The basis for this critique is the social constructivist view;
“first principle that the standards of evaluation of truth, rationality, success, and progressiveness are relative to a culture’s assumptions and that the ways of seeing further vary with gender, class, race, and caste in any given culture” (Nanda, 1998)
Reporters and editors affect by loads of different factors such as gender, circumstance and education. Making it impossible for reporters and editors to be objective (Merrill 1984).
“objectivity is little more in substance than rhetoric, since the reporter is bound to accept the basic institutions of his society (the family, private enterprise, the corporations, the political system, etc.), and therefore sees society only in terms of them” (Smith, 1980).
Ryan (2009) comments on this critique that;
“critics who argue that objectivity is a myth miss two important points: (a) An observer who tries to be objective, who recognizes personal and environmental influences and limitations and tries to transcend them, can describe reality with reasonable accuracy, and (b) an observer who tries to be objective will reconstruct reality more accurately than one who allows a personal agenda to influence strategic decisions. Indeed, the latter might well construct a “perceived reality” that has little or nothing to do with real life” (Ryan 2009).
Journalists may not be impartial, but the process of journalism may well be. You can make the same comparison with science, which has created a ‘scientific method’ which is meant to remove bias – it doesn’t always work, but science is still a broadly successful endeavour.
So, it can be seen that objectivity comes under criticism from a number of different perspectives. Most fundamental is the claim that while objectivity may not be possible, it should still be an aspiration (and that if nobody trusts or believes journalists, the consequences can be very dangerous). Some academics conclude that for both these reasons, objectivity is a pointless aspiration. However, others disagree, arguing that the journalists themselves may not be objective, but the journalistic process is. As well as, the discussion that people may no longer have complete trust in publications, but they build a personal trust in a particular journalist’s work by following them on social media. With the growth of online journalism and social media, these debates look set to continue.
By Georgina Blackwell
References
Calcutt, A and Hammond, P (2011) Journalism Studies: A Critical Introduction. London: Routledge.
Bennett, W. Lance (1990) ‘Toward a Theory of Press-State Relations in the United States’, Journal of Communication, 40 (2): 103-25.
Hallin, Daniel C. (1989) The Uncensored War’: The Media and Vietnam, Oxford: Oxford University Press. First published 1986.
Dennis, E. E. (1984). Journalistic objectivity is possible. In E. E. Dennis & J. C. Merrill, Basic issues in mass communication: A debate (pp. 111–118). New York: Macmillan.
Ryan, Michael (2001) Journalistic Ethics, Objectivity, Existential Journalism, Standpoint Epistemology, and Public Journalism, Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 16:1, 3-22, DOI: 10.1207/S15327728JMME1601_2
Merrill, J. C., & Lowenstein, R. L. (1979). Media, messages, and men: New perspectives in communication (2nd ed.). New York: Longman.
Koertge, N. (1996a). Feminist epistemology: Stalking an un-dead horse. In P. R. Gross, N. Levitt, & M. W. Lewis (Eds.), The flight from science and reason (pp. 413– 419). New York: New York Academy of Sciences.
Gaber, Ivor (2008) ‘Three Cheers for Subjectivity: Or, The Crumbling of the Seven Pillars of Journalistic Wisdom’, conference paper presented at The End of Journalism: Technology, Education and Ethics, University of Bedfordshire, 17-18 October, available online at http://theendofjournalism.wikidot.com/ivorgaber
Nanda, M. (1998). The epistemic charity of the social constructivist critics of science and why the Third World should refuse the offer. In N. Koertge (Ed.), A house built on sand: Exposing postmodernist myths about science (pp. 286–311). New York: Ox- ford University Press.
Merrill, J. C. (1984). Journalistic objectivity is not possible. In E. E. Dennis & J. C. Merrill, Basic issues in mass communication: A debate (pp. 104–110). New York: Macmillan.
Smith, A. (1980, May–June). Is objectivity obsolete? Journalists lost their innocence in the seventies—and gained new voices for the eighties. Columbia Journalism Re- view, pp. 61–65.
