Journalism and Society Submission – Craig Fergus

29 May Journalism and Society Submission – Craig Fergus

Posted at 01:20h in Level 4 by Craig Fergus

Can Journalism Be Objective?

 

To be objective is to ‘entail a commitment to truthfulness’, and ‘to imply neutrality in the sense of fairness and balance’ (Calcutt, A. & Hammond, P., 2011). The concept of objectivity is that a journalist should not have prior bias or judgment involved in the coverage of their story, regardless of their personal beliefs or feelings. Whilst objectivity is a highly controversial and wide term, this essay will use the broad definition as set out in Andrew Calcutt and Phil Hammond’s 2011 book, ‘Journalism Studies: A Critical Introduction’. Through answering the question about objectivity, this essay will focus on whether personal involvement in journalism improves or hinders objectivity. In doing this, it will focus on three journalistic styles – gonzo journalism, the journalism of attachment and social media journalism. When examining the three forms of journalism, I will use Calcutt and Hammonds definition and consider whether each of these styles does or does not satisfy their idea of objectivity.

The concept of gonzo journalism first appeared in the mid 1960s, and was thought of as a ‘new form of journalism’. Gonzo journalism focused on journalists seeing their stories from a different, more artistic perspective, and placing themselves in their story instead of writing solely about their observations. For instance, American journalist Tom Wolfe (1930-2018) wrote a nonfiction novel in 1968 titled ‘The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test’, which followed his adventures with author Ken Kesey and his Merry Pranksters – a group of LSD users – in 1960’s San Francisco, the peak of the psychedelic hippy movement. Rather than simply interviewing the acid users, Wolfe decided to try it himself. Speaking to publication GEO, he stated that ‘[I] did before I wrote the book as part of my reporting’ (Scura, Dorothy 1990). By allowing himself to experiment with the hallucinogenic drug prior to writing about it, it could be argued that Wolfe took acid in order to be objective on the use of it, as it was a particularly disputed substance in the United States at the time.

Journalism of attachment is an approach to reporting first used by BBC war correspondent Martin Bell in the 1990s, and it is intended for journalists to allow themselves to put emotion and their own feelings in writing whilst covering stories about hard topics such as conflict and war-related death. Through this form of journalism, it could be argued that ‘reporters cannot remain detached or neutral in the face of modern evils like genocide in Bosnia or Rwanda, but must side with the victims and demand that something must be done’ (Hume, Mick 1997). Journalism of attachment defies the concept of objectivity through demonstrating that one cannot truly be honest anymore unless they show signs of emotional engagement, and that they care about what they are covering.

The final form of journalistic style this essay will look at is social media journalism, the most modern out of the three. Social media journalism is one aspect of a trend of journalists and reporters placing themselves in the centre of their story, almost making it about them rather than what they are covering – regardless of whether that was their original intention or not. Often the journalist behind the piece is a celebrity or someone already well-known to the public, which is why they could be seen in a negative light and open themselves up to criticism from their readers or audience. Content creators now have the opportunity for self promotion through their social media outlets too, and it could be argued that some are not even attempting objectivity anymore – this is because they are clearly showing their feelings toward the subject they cover, and ‘if they present only a professional identity, they risk offending their audiences’ (Holton, Avery E. 2017).

There are both positive and negative aspects of gonzo journalism hindering objectivity, several of which have been debated by academics since the practice was first introduced by Hunter S. Thompson in 1970. One is that the writing style could be seen as more immersive than traditional journalism – through a journalist placing themselves in their own article about another subject, gonzo journalists ‘engaged in the roughly similar activity of challenging the straightjacket of objective journalism’ (Coward, Rosalind 2013). In contrast to this, it could be argued that through the journalists personal involvement in the piece that they are straying away from the story they are telling; in the acclaimed profile of Frank Sinatra in an edition of Esquire magazine, ‘Frank Sinatra Has a Cold’, writer Gay Talese documents his personal observations of Sinatra and his entourage, despite never actually speaking to the singer directly. Taleses approach to profile journalism could be seen as unethical, as he followed a man who did not want to be interviewed around for an extended period of time. He also used stereotypical features of nonfiction writing such as scene setting, dialogue and third person narrative in order to create a specific image of Frank Sinatra in the reader’s mind, thus making the entire profile the opposite of objective. However, another positive aspect of gonzo journalism is that if the journalist is not willing to get involved in their story, their audience will be unsure of whether to trust them, because they are only commentating on what they can see. Through interviews with several of Sinatras associates and friends, Talese builds a strong proposal of an artist at the peak of their popularity by not leaving out unpleasant information about him – ‘Sinatra with a cold is Picasso without paint, Ferrari without fuel – only worse’ (Talese, Gay 1966). But it could be claimed that by being the opposite of objective about Sinatra, Talese strayed from the story that he intended to write due to his personal views on the singer and the way he chooses to live his life; ‘he seemed miles away in his private world’ (Talese, Gay 1966).

Similarly, advantages and disadvantages also come with journalism of attachment, due to journalists that report from war zones often finding hard where to draw a professional line on where their personal emotions come into a story. An achievement for journalists who opt for Martin Bells method of journalism is that they could be seen as more humane than ones who don’t, because it can show that they are willing to express themselves through their writing rather than commentating on what they see around them. Journalism of attachment ‘promotes an idea that journalists should take sides if there is a clear case of morally right or wrong’ (Fraser, Graham 2006); however, it could be argued that through expressing a one sided opinion to their audience, the journalist cannot be objective as they are focusing solely on their opinion and not allowing the public to construct their own. Having said that, another potential positive of journalism of attachment is that it is the journalists decision to decide whose voice gets heard – ‘it is no use pretending that the victims of a massacre and its perpetrators have an equal right to be heard’ (Kingsnorth, Paul 1999). Thanks to the internet and social media outlets, journalists now have the ability to have their work seen across the world. But, the reader can’t know if the journalist has their own agenda and that they want to make their audience feel something specific if their journalism is not objective – another reason as to why it could be said that objectivity is the key to great journalism is that many consumers of content do not want to know the journalists private feelings toward a subject – they just want to be informed of world news.

Some would argue that social media journalism is the most non-objective out of the three styles covered in this essay, and that is due to high profile charities using well known figures to front their journalism. For instance, documentarian Stacey Dooley recently found herself at the centre of a race row, regarding a photograph she took with a Ugandan child whilst filming material for BBC’s Comic Relief campaign. The image sparked outrage online, with British MP David Lammy accusing Dooley of using the underprivileged child to make herself look like a ‘white saviour’ in the third world country; it was said to be a case of ‘charity versus dignity, and of impulsively stepping in to help versus listening first’ (Hinsliff, Gaby 2019). Whilst it is possible for social media journalism to be objective, it could be suggested that by using ‘celebrities’ for charity campaigns, the focus turns to the figure promoting the cause, rather than what they are trying to raise awareness of. Comic Relief often release short films that coincide with their collaborations, and stereotypically show the well known figure distressed at what they are seeing (members of band One Direction in an African emergency room). From doing this, it could be argued that they are not being objective because they aren’t attempting to hide their true feelings toward the ill children. However, by using celebrities to front campaigns such as Comic Relief, some would highlight that it actually encourages more people to get involved, therefore it shouldn’t be seen as a negative thing since they are the ones raising awareness of the issue.

It is clear to see that the three journalistic styles researched in this essay are far likely to be non objective as opposed to objective journalism. The three styles covered – gonzo journalism, the journalism of attachment, and social media journalism all require the journalist to draw interest to their work from their emotions toward the subject they are covering, and it could be argued that it makes for more interesting journalism. Journalism can certainly be objective, but from the findings in this essay, it is becoming increasingly hard to speak about sensitive subjects such as war conflict and the lives of vulnerable people without voicing a personal opinion. In conclusion, these three journalistic styles do not satisfy Andrew Calcutt and Phil Hammonds definition of objectivity, as they do not ‘imply neutrality in the sense of fairness and balance’.

 

Bibliography:

Craig Fergus
craigfergus2014@gmail.com