Things Get Interesting: Journalists are Debating the Definition of Objectivity

Advocacy journalism: a genre of journalism that intentionally and transparently adopts a non-objective viewpoint, usually for some social or political purpose. Because it is intended to be factual, it is distinguished from propaganda. It is also distinct from instances of media bias and failures of objectivity in media outlets, since the bias is intended. Some advocacy journalists reject that the traditional ideal of objectivity is possible in practice, either generally, or due to the presence of corporate sponsors in advertising. Some feel that the public interest is better served by a diversity of media outlets with a variety of transparent points of view, or that advocacy journalism serves a similar role to muckrakers or whistleblowers. -- Wikipedia on advocacy journalism

Maybe, just maybe, the murder of Floyd George has ripped off more than just one veil of self-deceit in American society. Black journalists are criticizing the concept of journalistic objectivity. Some question if it even exists. An NPR broadcast of The Takeaway asks what has prompted this outburst of criticism and whether journalistic objectivity is more myth than reality.

Black journalists rebel

Black journalists are raising the question of editorial and systemic racism in how the media forces them to conform to an allegedly objective narrative in their reporting that they often disagree with. One complaint that black journalists are often forced to convey a reality that they do not see or believe is real. They also complain of being forced to cover two sides of issues that they believe has only one real side to cover, the other apparently being seen as false reality or propaganda. Journalists call that kind of reporting false balancing.

Their fundamental complaint is that reporting in the name of objectivity reinforced the majority white point of view that has dominated American journalism. Some senior editors, apparently prompted by the combination of what happened to Floyd George, the larger public reaction to his murder and the complaints from their own black journalists, are beginning to question their own premises about objectivity in journalism. In essence, black reporters are arguing that objectivity is more myth than objective reality.

One of the guests on The Takeaway segment[1] comments that it is subjective to select what people and stories to cover and report on, how to report about what is chosen, what order of paragraphs the story will consist of, and what words are chosen to describe the story. When the definition of objectivity is questioned, it is seen as "very unfair" to many black journalists.

Although some senior level editors have resigned in recent weeks due to racial gaffes, the question is whether the people who replace them will act any differently. Unfortunately, the discussion becomes fuzzy about exactly what to do to fix the problem. One site, Axios, decided to let its reporters participate in demonstrations, allegedly so that they can somehow learn, maybe more or differently. That move was sharply criticized by some who believe that reporters should not be part of a story themselves. Arguably, when a reporter is a participant in an event, that is an objectivity killer.

In reviewing its own practices, NPR did not focus on the definition of objectivity, but instead focused on articulating clear standards for accuracy and fairness. NPR's review of its own reporting standards left objectivity alone because it was seen as too subjective a concept to try to define. Fairness and accuracy constitute the core elements of objectivity in NPR's view.

The confusion about what to do differently also came out in discussing what involvement, if any, reporters should have with social media. One guest asserted that reporters cannot call the president names and then turn around and call him the president and report fairly. Apparently, that commentator was arguing that dropping out of a restrained mode of professional neutrality, e.g., by insults or name calling, constitutes an irreparable act that cannot be recovered from. By that argument, the moment a reporter loses self-control, that person can no longer be professional about that issue or person.

The most concrete things discussed that can be done involves trying to deal with the usual complaints about institutional racism in journalism itself. That amounts to things like respecting, treating, training and paying white and non-white journalists the same and elevating more non-white journalists to senior positions. One complaint the segment aired was an allegation that journalism is dominated by whites and unequal treatment has caused loss of too many colored journalists from the profession.


Footnote:
1. The Takeaway broadcast segment:




A broadcast a couple of days ago in the NPR program 1A (short for 1st Amendment; the broadcast is below) asks what objectivity is, assuming it exists at all. Again, the discussion starts off criticizing the concept of objectivity as more myth than reality. The concepts of accuracy, transparency and fairness were raised as better standards to strive for than amorphous objectivity. But even there, one commentator confusingly asserted it is OK for reporters to take a side on a story, but the journalist has to make sure their position is "right." That is an important point.

At present, there are organizations like Fox News and the leviathan Sinclair Broadcast Group that routinely take the conservative side on most stories and issues. They do not show much concern for accuracy, transparency or fairness in their reporting. Their anti-liberal bias is clear and not subtle. They falsely claim to be accurate, transparent and fair, but the reality is arguably quite different. Can one call that professional advocacy journalism, or is it so unprofessional that most of the content is more accurately seen as dark free speech?

Discussions like these make it clear that dealing with race in America is amazingly complicated and subject to all sorts of subjective, usually unconscious, human impulses. One commentator called journalistic objectivity "white supremacist." Both broadcast segments mix concerns about institutional racism and what professional objectivity is and what it allows and does not allow reporters to be and do.




Here is a link to an essay on journalistic objectivity published by the American Press Institute. That essay includes these comments:

"The term [objectivity] began to appear as part of journalism after the turn of the 20th century, particularly in the 1920s, out of a growing recognition that journalists were full of bias, often unconsciously. Objectivity called for journalists to develop a consistent method of testing information – a transparent approach to evidence – precisely so that personal and cultural biases would not undermine the accuracy of their work. 

In the latter part of the 19th century, journalists talked about something called “realism” rather than objectivity. This was the idea that if reporters simply dug out the facts and ordered them together, truth would reveal itself rather naturally. 

Realism emerged at a time when journalism was separating from political party affiliations and becoming more accurate. It coincided with the invention of what journalists call the inverted pyramid, in which a journalist lines the facts up from the most important to the least important, thinking it helps audiences understand things naturally.

At the beginning of the 20th century, however, some journalists began to worry about the naïveté of realism. In part, reporters and editors were becoming more aware of the rise of propaganda and the role of press agents."