Objectivity in Journalism

"What is 'objectivity' and how does it inform the practice of contemporary journalism? Do you think it is really possible or desirable for journalists to be objective when reporting and observing the world?"

In my research about on this topic I found a succinct definition of three characteristics of objective journalism:
1.The Separation of facts and opinion
2.A balanced account of a debate
3.The Validation of journalistic statements by reference to authoritative others. (Franklin: 2005, 177)

The characteristics of objectivity are easy to establish, however it is more difficult to ascertain how stringently these guidelines are followed, consciously or unconsciously. There are many different viewpoints as to how necessary objectivity is, dating back to the start of journalism, and broadcast journalism, right up to today.

Throughout recently years and especially since the advent of broadcast journalism there has been a big emphasis on the news and journalism being objective. It seems to me that journalists receive a lot of criticism, and are under constant scrutiny as to their methods and practices. It seems to me that journalists are held on a pedestal as to their duty to report the truth. Schudson posed the question "Why do critics take it for granted that the press should be objective?" (1978, 3)
I feel this question would be neatly answered by this quote by Lichtenberg: "Our most fundamental interest in objectivity is an interest in the truth" (1996, 227)
The idea of 'objectivity = truth' seems to be a very common image of what people think of when they think of objectivity. If the three points that Franklin are applied to the 'objectivity = truth' model, I feel the equation seems to break down.

For example to be objective you need to validate your statements by reference to authoritative others, the question then may be posed 'who are the authoritative others?' and are they acting objectively.
It seems to me there is a rather wide scope for prejudice, bias or favouritism to sneak into the chain between the 'event' and that 'event' being printed or broadcast. Lichtenberg makes the argument: "No one can totally escape his biases; no one can be completely objective" (1996, 227), and I am inclined to agree, it would be nearly impossible to escape all preconceived notions before writing a final story, or even when fact gathering. To be completely objective would be to totally remove oneself from all arguments both old and new. I see this an impossible task, as it is in the nature of the journalist to be involved in debates and current affairs, otherwise they would be out of touch with current issues. Schudson makes the profound (if not obvious) statement: "Journalism is an uninsulated profession" (1978, 9)

In summary there are many different viewpoints on the idea of objectivity as an ideal, some conflicting and some conciliatory. This ideological divide is what makes it difficult to define, and even harder to achieve.

"The concept of objectivity does not mean that about ever single question we might ask there is a single right answer" (Lichtenberg: 1996, 237) Objectivity is more often used as a way to regulate news stories in print and broadcast mediums. It doesn't seem to me that a single right answer is the point of modern journalism, but more to show people what the issues are, and give them points from each side of the debate. I think this is neatly summed up in the famous BBC statement "to inform, educate and entertain"(www.bbc.co.uk) Methods that are supposedly objective are often pointed to as a way of verifying the truthfulness of the statements made. This again brings us back to Franklin's three guidelines; presenting both sides of the debate, verifying sources, and separating facts from opinion. Objectivity is often a difficult topic to pin down, as there are so many varying viewpoints about what it is and what it does.

A good analogy is made by Belsey and Chadwick: "Just as a map that is the same size as it's territory is useless so too is a report that reproduces the original text in its entirety and without further comment" (1992, 114) The essential point is that it is not a good strategy to present all the information regarding a particular incident without shaping it, and condensing it down. But therein lies the problem; what does the journalist leave out and why. This is often where the claims of bias and partiality come in; the method that the journalist uses to whittle down the information to an acceptable column length or time slot. Franklin states: "Crude and deliberate bias is rare; typically bias is attributed to structural or systematic relations and factors" (2005, 25) In a recent story in the daily mail a journalist made the link between the teaching assistant who was sacked for wearing a veil in class, and the 7/7 bombers (www.dailymail.co.uk) I feel this is an example of an unconscious bias, as links (however flimsy) are being made in the wake of Muslim extremist terrorism.

"Since all representations are to a greater or lesser degree 'selective', all representations are misrepresentative of the true breadth and complexity of modern societies" (Franklin: 2005, 234) this is a rather harsh (and a little homogeneous) indictment of journalism, but there is a point to be made that all journalism is about selecting and shortening events to fit them into today's competitive news market. In traditional journalism today I feel that objectivity is very difficult to achieve when considering objectivity as a news practice, but it is ultimately a popular practice and will most likely continue in traditional forms of journalism.

In new media forms such as web logs, pod casts, and news forums there has been a shift away from the traditional ideals of objectivity and impartiality. There seems to have been a regression back to the days of the radical papers in England where "Country inns and taverns used by itinerants were noted as centres for news and discussion" (Hill: 1991, 45) The inn and tavern have made way for online communities such as newsvine.com where established notions of objectivity have been replaced by democracy. The workings are relatively simple; users submit news content found on the Internet, other users comment and vote on that content and if it generates enough interest it appears on the "front page" (www.newsvine.com) This may be seen as 'new (or alternative) media', but it does have its origins in the radical press in England.

However, as was the problem with the radical press, the majority of what is discussed may indeed be opinion and not strict "fact". Then again, is that such a bad thing considering the amount of uniform news content that seems to be creeping into traditional broadcast and print mediums? This "Alternative media" allows the public to decide what is important, and it allows people from different cultures to discuss issues. I feel that issues like these will decide in the future whether the public gets it's news from traditional sources, or 'alternative sources' and that will decide that fate of 'Objectivity' in it's traditional forms

The core of the argument is what purpose does objectivity serve in the current world of journalism, and is it possible to be objective. My belief is that objectivity is nothing more than a structural practice in modern journalism, and while it may still be an ideal held dear by some journalists it is no longer the main issue influencing news production at present.

Reference list: (in order of use)

Books
1.Franklin, Bob – Key Concepts in Journalism Studies, 2005.

2.Schudson, Michael – Discovering the News: A Social History of American newspapers, 'The ideal of objectivity' 1978.

3.Lichtenberg, Judith in – Mass Media and Society 2nd edition, 'In defence of objectivity revisited', Edited by Curran, James and Gurevitch, Michael, 1996.

4.Belsey, Andrew and Chadwick, Ruth (eds.) – Ethical Issues in Journalism and the Media, 1992.

5.Hill, Christopher - The world turned upside down: radical ideas during the English Revolution, 1975.

Internet sources
http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/statements2006/purpose.shtml

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=411983&in_page_id=1770

http://www.newsvine.com/_cms/welcome

http://www.newsvine.com/_cms/info/companyinfo

Back To Top