29 May Adan’s Essay- Can Journalism be Objective?
Can Journalism be Objective?
This Essay will look at whether Journalism and whether it can be objective and also why it cannot be. Objectivity is the thought that something is basically based on facts and personal beliefs have no influence on a matter. In particular, journalism can cause some stir in terms of whether it can be objective or not. It can be seen as broken and the majority of It can have a small part of bias to it.
Journalism is a career in high demand and is the biggest source of news. With social media now playing a major role now it is vital the source which journalists and reporters get their information from is vital because it can be the stumbling block with their relationship with the public and also may affect their own reputation as a journalist losing credibility and losing the trust of the public. Journalists are allowed to have an opinion on a story, but their opinion basically means nothing if there is evidence or a good source to support it.
An argument to say journalism can be objective is that facts and statistics make or break a story. Academics and Journalists look for the truthfulness, neutrality and emotional detachment (Calcutt and Hammond, 2011). This means that it looks at the accuracy in these facts, whether they are fair and balanced and also if they make it easier to let the audience make up their minds simply based on reliable statistics and facts. For example, in football Manchester City won three trophies. That is not an opinion, or a belief that is a straight fact that Manchester City are a successful team this season. Journalist can report that in many different angles, but it won’t hide and cover up the fact that they were good. This also means that all different perspectives lead to one outcome which is a positive one. In sport it is vital to represent facts as the final score cannot be changed and the fact that Manchester City are champions and that should conclude discussions . Also, Alex S. Jones states that “Objectivity does not require that journalists be blank slates free of bias. In fact, objectivity is necessary precisely because they are biased” (Nieman reports, fall 2009). This clearly shows his strong stance in objectivity and that it he believes the whole point of objectivity is because people are bias. It could also be suggested that objectivity does not make discussions debateable and choose a side instead it lays out hard evidence which makes it difficult to argue with and come up with an end result. Therefore, this may make some debates to be resolved more quickly.
However, there are some criticism for objectivity. One could be that it could lead to complacency. Ivor Gaber (2008) suggests that it is difficult to put a side your own beliefs. He states, “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”. This suggests that people can say that they can put their beliefs to one side but they only fool others and in a sense cheat their way into thinking they can be unbiased. From this it can also infer that people would like to find information and statistics that fit to their side of the argument. It could even negate the fact there are other stats and facts that support a good argument for the other side. It is fair to say the intentions of objectivity is to be fair and balanced, but it has been manipulated in thinking whatever figures or data provided is the end result without other contemplating the other side of the story. ‘Critics claimed that urban planning created slums, that schools made people stupid, that medicine caused disease, that psychiatry invented mental illness, and that the courts promoted injustice….And objectivity in journalism, [previously] regarded as an antidote to bias, came to be looked upon as the most insidious bias of all. For “objective” reporting reproduced a vision of social reality which refused to examine the basic structures of power and privilege…. It represented collusion with institutions whose legitimacy was in dispute.’ (Michael Schudson 1978, Discovering the News, New York, NY: Basic Books, p160). From this it can be inferred that what is pointed out earlier in this argument that it can be easily manipulated, and it can be regarded more bias than anything else and can be used for someone’s own benefit. Also, it discards the reality and that there is a good argument against their point. Another thing in sports, for pundits, it is there job to be objective, but it is can be clear to see at times they can be slightly bias as they have some sort of affection to certain clubs as they used to play for them. Ian Wright (The Daily Express 2019) says ‘ARSENAL will beat Chelsea in the Europa League final because their strike force may be too much for the Blues.’ Of course, Ian Wright was a former Arsenal player and a premier league winner in 1998, however as a pundit it could be deemed by some people as just a prediction for the upcoming final or it could come across as biased as he spent the majority of his career playing for Arsenal. From this it is clear to see that despite his current job is to give analysis to the game and be as neutral as possible. However, as it can be seen it is very difficult to put aside their elegance of a club especially when predicting a cup final. Also, in a football match the score line may come across as objective. However, there are more in-depth statistics that may suggest the final result isn’t as easy as it seems. Examples are used such as possession, passes completed, shots on target. These stats give the whole outline of a match this makes it easier and clearer to understand whether the win was deserved, or it was fortunate. In addition to that it is the premier league title has gone to Manchester City however Liverpool lost only one game the entire season compared to 4 by City and the race for the league had gone on to the final day of the season which meant that it was not as simple as one might suggest as Liverpool had a records point tally but still couldn’t pip City to the title. This indicates there may have been fortune in the title win as the final result may not tell the whole story of the season. Another way football makes it very difficult to be objective is the end of season awards. There are two very prestigious awards which are the ‘PFA Footballer of the Year Awards’ and FWA (Football Writers Association) Awards which are voted by the players and journalists respectively. Virgil Van Dijk of Liverpool won the PFA award and Raheem Sterling of Manchester City won the FWA award. This clearly shows that giving the opportunity for journalist to vote on something prestigious shows that it is more or less impossible to move away from giving their opinions when in this occasion it is most definitely required. Raheem Sterling has been a victim of journalist finding a story to criticise him off the pitch. For example, Prior to the world cup in 2018, Sterling had a gun tattoo on his right leg this sparked outrage with anti-gun campaigners calling him to be dropped from the squad. The sun reported with the headline ‘TAT’S GUN TOO FAR
England ace Raheem Sterling sparks fury by unveiling M16 assault rifle tattoo on his leg’ (Stephen Moyes and Alex Diaz, 2018, The Sun).This article has gone on to criticise Sterling and gone on the assumption that he is being a bad role model and are not aware of what the gun symbolises they have shown tweets of Piers Morgan and Frank Bruno criticising the tattoo. They didn’t mention that the tattoo was actually representing his father as he died from a gunshot wound when Sterling was a child. This goes to show that objectivity can end up in unjustified criticism as well. The ‘Glasgow Media Group’ which was formed at the University of Glasgow in 1974, they argue that the news is biased in favour of the countries with more power over issues regarding war zones such as Israel and Palestine. ‘[The] ideology of news … requires it to be neutral, unbiased, impartial and balanced. … [The] prevailing professional ideology encompassed by the myths of impartiality, balance and objectivity allows the broadcasters to tacitly trade upon the unspoken and dominant ideology of our society – the liberal notion that there is a fundamental consensus.’ (Glasgow University Media Group 1980 More Bad News. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, p402.). This suggests that the way news is portrayed it looks as if the media is in favour of the higher power and it is in a sense controlled by it. This means that the viewpoint of a more vulnerable group is rarely put under any consideration.
To conclude this essay, it is easy to say that being objectivity in journalism is difficult to argue as there are many clear points to discuss why it that it can go both ways. However, it is difficult to look past the fact that a lot of it does actually rely on opinions and here can be an emotional role to be played as well. As Ivor Gabor said earlier that everyone has their own beliefs and it is near enough impossible to negate those beliefs to make the story as well. Also, the fact the objectivity can be manipulated and is easy to cover up the whole story and its reality which sort of means when people are being ‘objective’ in a way they are not. To answer the question can it be objective, it will be very difficult to suggest it can be based on Gaber theory.
Bibliography:
Calcutt and Hammond, 2011 Journalism Studies: A critical introduction
Nieman reports, fall 2009
Ivor Gaber the crumbling of the seven pillars of journalistic wisdom 2008
Michael Schudson 1978, Discovering the News, New York, NY: Basic Books, p160
Ian Wright The Daily Express 2019
Glasgow University Media Group 1980 More Bad News. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, p402
(Stephen Moyes and Alex Diaz, 2018, The Sun) Raheem Sterling Tattoo Article
