12 Jun Can journalism be objective?
Journalistic objectivity is defined by the Cambridge English Dictionary as “being based on facts and not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings”. In other words, a journalist should state facts and tell a story based only on these facts, and nothing else.
An objective journalist should be able to report on anything without showing any kind of opinion. Journalism is about presenting facts the way they are, and making sure of the accuracy, but it is not about judging or discussing the information they have. The main point of journalism is to provide reports on different matters to inform the population on what is going on around them and across the world.
If it seems essential to be objective to be a good journalist, it has been said that “objectivity is a meaningless aspiration and trying to achieve it could be dangerous” (Ivor Gaber, 2008). Considering these divergences of opinions, can journalism really be objective?
In the process of answering the question of journalistic objectivity, this essay will cover specific concepts such as fairness, emotional detachment and neutrality, to see wether journalism can be objective or not.
If journalism is objective, it is meant to be ruled by these concepts, among others.
However, it seems like objectivity is impossible, as it seems pretty hard to believe that journalists could have no opinion when writing a paper.
Objectivity in journalism means stating facts without showing an opinion in order for people to interpret things the way they want to. Indeed, a journalist is meant to tell stories based on facts, and from that, readers can make their own opinion on the matter, without getting influenced.
“Fairness in journalism means exploring all sides of an issue and reporting the findings accurately” (Media helping media). Indeed, a journalist is not expected to give a judgement on the situation, since it would influence whoever is reading it, in one way or another.
Emotional detachment is about being able to keep a distance/detachment with whatever you are reporting on, as a journalist.
Neutrality is a really important concept in objectivity, although focusing too much on neutrality can be an issue since it prevents journalists from being objective. Indeed, when trying too hard to stay neutral, journalists can sometimes lack of objectivity, making the story more confusing than ever.
‘These are interrelated in that – at least in theory – journalists are dispassionate and neutral so as not to let their own emotional responses and political allegiances get in the way of reporting truthfully. The normative ideals to which journalism traditionally aspires – truthfulness, fairness, detachment – appear to some critics as impossible to achieve just because of human fallibility.’( Calcutt, A. and P. Hammond 2011, p. 98)
‘The BBC’s Graham Satchell’s response to the Paris attacks has attracted sympathy, but such breaks with formality are increasingly what the audience demands’ ( The Guardian, 2015). Human beings have feelings. Feelings are what makes objectivity complicated, since it seems impossible to tell a story without influencing people into agreeing with our opinion. It works the same way as when someone tells about a conversation, and the other person gives a different version. We all perceive things in a different way, and we unconsciously lead people into sharing our ideas. Even when trying to stay objective, journalists use particular words that usually highlight their opinion, even though they’re trying to hide it.
‘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. […] 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. For it is when journalists believe they have attained Olympian objectivity that they are in greatest danger of failing to see how their own conscious and unconscious motivations are affecting how they report’ (Ivor Gaber, 2008, p.98-99).
However, the lack of objectivity is not always considered a bad thing. Many journalists seem to think that non-objectivity is the soul of their writings. They want to write according to their feelings and use their work to support and campaign for whatever is important to them. ‘But we believe that journalism can be, no only a means of communicating information, but also a way of changing things – a way of campaigning for a different future.’ (Kingsnorth P. 1999)
Sarah Benhaida uses journalism to denounce political issues, wars, telling one by one the stories of all the terrible things she witnessed all along her career. She uses journalism to raise awareness, hoping for things to change one day. ‘It was in August 2018, when I covered the trial of Lahcene Gueboudj, […] He swore he had been captured in Syria and transferred to Iraq by American forces, while the judge insisted he had been captured in Mosul. At the time, I couldn’t figure out which was the truth. His trial lasted half an hour. He was handed a life sentence. I later learned that the man had been right all along – he was captured in Syria and transferred to Iraq.’ (Sarah Benhaida 2019). The lack of objectivity makes the story more interesting, if the journalist was stating facts and nothing else, readers would feel detached and wouldn’t pay attention to the story, or the victim. But here, the journalist opens up, making the reader a part of the story. From this point of view, it is hard to believe objectivity is needed.
‘Good coverage of disasters is a skillful combination of the emotional and the objective sides of journalism. The issue is not whether journalists should display emotions. The idea that journalists must be detached and neutral in the middle of chaos is outdated and wrong […] A journalism of disasters is not a journalism of Olympian detachment. It is not a journalism fixated on stimulating the emotions of audiences. It is a humanistic journalism that combines reason and emotion. Humanistic journalists bring empathy to bear on the victims of tragedy – an empathy informed by facts and critical analysis.’ (Stephen J.A. Ward, 2010). Objectivity and emotions are a really important part of journalism, especially as a reporter. It is needed to show emotions, especially in a war situation, or any kind of conflict, attack… It shows support and it is highly appreciated by the audience and it is seen as a sign of respect. But showing too much can also be considered as a lack of respect towards the people suffering. It is important to find a balance between emotions and objectivity.
Complete objectivity in journalism probably doesn’t exist, since, as human beings, we will always be affected by certain stories, and will always have a more or less important opinion on every matter. I firmly believe that no one could work on a story without unconsciously developing an opinion on the matter. The lack of objectivity can barely be noticeable, but total objectivity seems impossible to imagine. Moreover, sharing opinions and showing feelings is more and more appreciated by readers as it shows the human side of being a journalism, which is a very criticised job.
References:
Benhaida Sarah (2019), Baghdad tries Islamic State.
https://correspondent.afp.com/baghdad-tries-islamic-state/
Calcutt, A. and P. Hammond (2011) Journalism Studies: A Critical Introduction. London: Routledge
Gaber Ivor (2008) “Three cheers for Subjectivity: Or, the Crumbling of the Seven Pillars of Journalistic Wisdom”
Kingsnorth Paul (1999), The Journalism of Attachment.
http://paulkingsnorth.net/1999/08/26/the-journalism-of-attachment/
Media Helping Media (2015), Fairness in journalism.
http://www.mediahelpingmedia.org/training-resources/editorial-ethics/239-fairness-in-journalism/
The guardian (2015), First thoughts, Paris attacks.
Stephen J. A. Ward (2010), Emotion in reporting: Use and Abuse.
https://ethics.journalism.wisc.edu/2010/08/23/emotion-in-reporting/
