Alex S. Jones (a lecturer on the press and public policy who has the burden of sharing the same name as the crazy person on InfoWars.com), wrote a book in which he described the importance of objectivity in journalism.
He said, “objectivity does not require that journalists be blank slates free of bias. In fact, objectivity is necessary precisely because they are biased.” That quote perfectly captures my perspective on this debate about objectivity.
I do not believe that all journalists should be objective. Journalists that expose their ideology in their reporting certain have an important role to play in the press. But it is crucial that the media isn’t completely comprised of those types of journalists. The media needs to have objective journalists - journalists that may have a certain viewpoint, but remain neutral in their reporting.
True objectivity probably isn’t possible, but that doesn’t mean it’s not worth pursuing. It is important for consumers to have the option of looking at objective reporting so that they can separate facts from spin-masters. Good objective reporting includes a fair presentation of both sides of an argument while making it clear to the reader what is objectively a fact and not up for debate.
There are a few areas where objectivity shouldn’t exist. It shouldn’t exist for coverage of white supremacy or other terrorist organizations, for example. In those instances, reporters must join the rest of civilized society and encourage the rejection of such heinous beliefs.
However, just because journalists should tell their audience that racism or murder is wrong, doesn’t mean that they should tell their audience that it’s wrong that health care isn’t guaranteed as a right. There is a distinction between rejecting serious threats to civilized society and taking a side in mainstream political debate. (By the way, a single payer system is a very, very bad idea)
When discussing the issue in class, the example of climate change often comes up. Objective coverage of climate change is reporting on the two political positions on the issue (if relevant to a story) and then stating the scientific facts about climate change that may contradict one of the sides. Whenever climate deniers reference legitimate facts, then that should be included as well when relevant. My point is that when one side says the sky is blue and the other says its orange and we can look and confirm that it’s blue, it is objective journalism to state which side is correct on that issue.
In the Transparency is the New Objectivity article, the author makes the argument that objectivity is a fallacy and that transparency is the answer:
“Anyone who claims objectivity should be willing to back that assertion up by letting us look at sources, disagreements, and the personal assumptions and values supposedly bracketed out of the report. Objectivity without transparency increasingly will look like arrogance. And then foolishness. Why should we trust what one person — with the best of intentions — insists is true when we instead could have a web of evidence, ideas, and argument?”
Objective reporting is not a result of arrogance. It is the result of journalists striving to give the consumer the most accurate assessment of the facts as they can. That way the reader or viewer can make up their own mind.
In terms of being transparent about beliefs, I think it should only be done when it’s relevant. For example, if a journalists writes a story about Edward Snowden and has been donating to foundations supporting him or has written other pieces defending him, than being transparent about that is a must. But if a journalist is doing a story about a tax reform bill and has opinions that were never acted upon, than there isn’t a need for transparency. They just need to be mindful of their biases and make sure if doesn’t bleed through in their work. If every “objective” journalist gave a list of all their biases for every story they’ve worked on, than they would generate a lot of unhealthy skepticism from their audience.
No comments:
Post a Comment