The End of Objectivity (Version 0.91)

UPDATED

(This is a draft. Over time I hope, with your help, to revise this into a better document. Let me know what you think.)

Maybe it's time to say a fond farewell to an old canon of journalism: objectivity. But it will never be time to kiss off the values and principles that undergird the idea.

Objectivity is a construct of recent times. One reason for its rise in the journalism sphere has been the consolidation of newspapers and television into monopolies and oligopolies in the past half-century. If one voice overwhelms all the others, there is a public interest in playing stories as straight as possible -- not favoring one side over the other (or others, to be more precise, as there are rarely just two sides to any issue).

There were good business reasons to be "objective," too, not least that a newspaper didn't want to make large parts of its community angry. And, no doubt, libel law has played a role, too. If a publication could say it "got both sides," perhaps a libel plaintiff would have more trouble winning.

Again, the idea of objectivity is a worthy one. But we are human. We have biases and backgrounds and a variety of conflicts that we bring to our jobs every day.

I'd like to toss out objectivity as a goal, however, and replace it with four other notions that may add up to the same thing. They are pillars of good journalism: thoroughness, accuracy, fairness and transparency.

The lines separating them are not always clear. They are open to wide interpretation, and are therefore loaded with nuance in themselves. But I think they are a useful way to approach quality journalism. They are, moreover, easier to achieve in an online setting.

Thoroughness

When I was a reporter and, later, a columnist, my first goal was to learn as much as I could. After all, gathering facts and opinions is the foundation of reporting. I liked it best when I felt I had left 95 percent of what I'd learned out of the final piece. The best reporters I know always want to make one more call, check with one more source. (The last question I ask at all interviews is, "Who else should I talk with about this?"

Today, thoroughness means more than asking questions of the people in our Rolodexes (circular or virtual). It means, whenever possible, asking our readers for their input, as I did when I wrote my book (and other authors are doing on theirs). Competitive pressures tend to make this a rare request, but I'm convinced that more journalists will adopt it.

Accuracy

Get your facts straight.

Say what you don't know, not just what you do. (If the reader/listener/viewer does know what you don't, you've just invited him/her to fill you in.)

Fairness

This one is as difficult, in practice, as accuracy is simple. Fairness is often in the eye of the beholder. But even here I think a few principles may universally apply.

Fairness means, among other things, listening to different viewpoints, and incorporating them into the journalism. It does not mean parroting lies or distortions to achieve that lazy equivalence that leads some journalists to get opposing quotes when the facts overwhelmingly support one side.

Fairness is also about letting people respond when they believe you are wrong. Again, this is much easier online than in a print publication, much less a broadcast.

Ultimately, fairness emerges from a state of mind. We should be aware of what drives us, and always willing to listen to those who disagree. The first rule of having a conversation is to listen -- and I know I learn more from people who think I'm wrong than from those who agree with me.

Transparency

Disclosure is gaining currency as an addition to journalism. It's easier said than done, of course.

No one can plausibly argue with the idea that journalists need to disclose certain things, such as financial conflicts of interest. But to what extent? Should journalists of all kinds be expected to make their lives open books? How open?

Personal biases, even unconscious ones, affect the journalism as well. I'm an American, brought up in with certain beliefs that many folks in other lands (and some in this one) flatly reject. I need to be aware of the things I take for granted, and to periodically challenge some of them, as I do my work.

Another way to be transparent is in the way we present a story. We should link to source material as much as possible, bolstering what we tell people with close-to-the-ground facts and data. (Maybe this is part of accuracy or thoroughness, but it seems to fit here, too.)

To the extent that we make thoroughness, accuracy, fairness and transparency the pillars of journalism, we can get a long way toward the worthy goal of helping our audiences/collaborators. I don't claim it's easy, but I do think it's worth the effort.

Comments

[Mathias Hellsten]

I like this article. It's time we realize that it's a myth that people can be "objective". But still we need to strive for the highest level of fairness and objectivity we can reach. :) Keep up the good work.

[Mark Deuze]

Perhaps we can use Jean Baudrillard here (I quote): "Theoretical violence, not truth, is the only resource left to us." In the context of journalism this would mean: if we accept for a moment that all mediated information is a construct/ an interpretation, (regardless how ethical the informer worked on it), we cannot attack nor defend journalism (as a process or product) using 'truth'. We can only, as Matthew said above, strive for the utmost diversity of interpretations in media.

Professional journalism is very much tied into the history of modernity with its emphasis on the possibility of a 'one size fits all' reading of events. Today's citizens either do not care, or have long moved on and created their own, individual readings of events. For journalism to survive, it has to embrace this mindset.

[Rachel Pashkin]

Thank you for putting into words what most concerned Americans have been thinking for years. Change has to begin somewhere.

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has,"
-Margaret Mead

[Tom Bradley]

I think the main reason bloggers have jumped to support the "death of objectivity" argument is that it makes no sense as a guiding principle for their own activities. But I still believe it is necessary for traditional journalism to serve its democratic function.

People have come to equate objectivity with what I call "balance," and its appalling result - news stories that merely offer up statements from official sources on either side of the fence, with no true investigation or conclusion based on independent evidence. In fact, objectivity is the opposite. Look it up in Webster's; objectivity is a commitment to the idea that truth exists "outside the mind," that truth does exist outside the restriction of biases and prejudices. If journalists don't try to identify that independent, objective truth, then we are condemned to a journalism of conflicting truths, conflicting realities. The source of the information gains primacy -- the guy who thinks like me said this, so this must be true.

In a bipartisan (at least) political environment, some source is needed that says, "We have evaluated the objective reality of all statements, and here's the one that holds the most water." And that source must be trusted - its commitment to objectivity must be its primary raison d'etre. I fear we are headed now for a journalistic Tower of Babel, based on pre-existing, competing and combating world views with no hope of changing minds based on the presentation of objective truths from a trusted source.