Can the news really be objective? An Atlanta editor says no
Objectivity and news reporting is something the media strives for and is often criticized for lacking. But the Atlanta Progressive News is taking the bold step by stating in its editorial policy that not only does it believe objectivity doesn’t exist, it’s not even something it wants.
“The premise of objectivity is literally to remove the observer from what it is that is being observed and simply to report what ‘is.’ However, that is an impossibility. It cannot be done. In fact, there is nothing that ‘is,’ separate from the observer or multiple observers who construct and interpret what that reality is.”
There’s also an apt quote from historian and author Howard Zinn: "You can't be neutral on a moving train."
Being a reporter is a lot like being on a moving train. And the Atlanta Progessive News take is an interesting point of view, one that’s been sometimes debated among reporters, editors, pundits and readers.
Is there objectivity in the news? The more a reporter inserts personality and observation, the more objectivity is lost. As soon as the first words are typed, the personality of the person at the keyboard comes through, even if just a little bit. Reporter A will have a different approach to a story than Reporter B.
But what is objectivity, really? It’s not merely a matter of observations, said or unsaid. Generally, it’s adhering to principals of fairness, factuality and nonpartisanship. It’s an attempt to get all sides of a story, and to leave oneself out of it. It’s about being neutral.
There are critics who say objectivity is long gone from the news, and those who say reporters’ distance from a story kills it. Anyone who reads or listens to news stories would probably agree the most interesting are usually those with some color, a little personality, some take on the scene.
Tragic events like fires, crime scenes and accidents, are better told with a bit of drama; it makes for a better read. But it’s not the way the media – at least the print media – generally works.
My newsroom sticks to the facts, even when faced with drama. Color comes from quotes, if we can get them, or from photos, which can often show the theatrics. Still, objectivity is somewhat lost just by what the reporter chooses to leave out, either by forced choose (word count limitations), accident (didn’t think of it) or circumstance (couldn’t reach the person, get the document).
The Atlanta paper says it’s a publication that caters to an audience ignored by other mainstream media – working families. It says that while most media maintain it’s objective, it’s not; it “promotes the corporate agenda of the ultra-wealthy.”
That’s their take. I don’t agree, but I will give them that most media will say objectivity is a fundamental principal that everyone abides by. And I will give them that the principal is probably not achieved all the time.
Perhaps it shouldn’t be. A reporter’s judgment at any given time, combined with an editor’s guiding eye, can make the final call.
The Atlanta Progressive News is so inflexible in their approach to no objectivity, they even fired a reporter for being objective. Senior staff writer Jonathan Springston was let go for his fact-based-only reporting.
That seems a bit drastic, as does its stance.
As media morphs and gets re-directed by new outlets, some old principles may be rewritten, or simply unexpected, over time. Perhaps reporters shouldn’t strive to be neutral on a moving train. But getting all sides of story, with balanced reporting and nonpartisanship... well, I can’t see that ever going by the wayside.
Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000198 EndHTML:0000008493 StartFragment:0000002612 EndFragment:0000008457 SourceURL:file://localhost/Users/cindycapitani/Documents/Blogs/news%20and%20objectivity.doc
Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000198 EndHTML:0000008493 StartFragment:0000002612 EndFragment:0000008457 SourceURL:file://localhost/Users/cindycapitani/Documents/Blogs/news%20and%20objectivity.doc
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
froggy
Thoth
Susie Lindau
Mimetalker
Frank Michels
Surazeus
Salon.com
Comments
Objectivity is the objective of factual reporting, presenting facts as they have been collected without offering opinions about the implications of the facts.
As a rewrite man, it was my job to remove the personality from the incoming pieces written by reporters. Then, the copy editors marked up my copy, removing the quirks that my personality inserted, only to have their work reviewed by another copy editor, as well as a managing editor, before the piece went to press.
The objective of this enterprise was to strain the facts through a sieve, removing opinions and conclusions not supported by the parties to the event being reported.
The great problem with current “journalism” (and I use the word advisedly) is that everyone is too busy grinding their axes to determine and report the facts.
As a reporter, my job wasn’t to make declarative statements. It was to get the parties involved in the story to make declarative statements that I could include in my reporting. Where there was disagreement about the facts, my job was to find and quote a representative from each of the dissenting participants. Tiresome, but necessary.
Heisenberg’s Principle dictates that the observer changes the event, and this is true in journalism as well as in quantum mechanics. Nothing creates a story more than a few news trucks with their antennas up in the air, creating a carnival atmosphere around sober events.
Reminds me of the old joke we used to pull on the streets of New York, when a bunch of us would point at a building, crying, “No! Don’t jump,” causing everyone around us to look up.
The idea that a reporter was fired for being objective and reporting the facts indicates that this publication is actively involved in slanting the news, not reporting it.
And what is the difference between a "working family" and a "non-working family"?
In other words, classic objectivity has become a tool used to keep reporters from calling bullshit when they see it.
who cares - i liked it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtGSXMuWMR4
Rated. Keep at it, kid.
Hi,Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, Here are the most popular, most stylish and avantgarde shoes,handbags,Tshirts,jacket,Tracksuitw ect...NIKE SHOX,JORDAN SHOES 1-24,AF,DUNK,SB,PUMA ,R4,NZ,OZ,T1-TL3)$35HANDBGAS(COACH,L V, DG, ED HARDY)$35TSHIRTS (POLO ,ED HARDY, LACOSTE) $16 New to Hong Kong : Winter Dress--- NHL Jersey Woman $ 40 --- NFL Jersey $35--- NBA Jersey $ 34 --- MLB Jersey $ 35--- Jordan Six Ring_m $36 --- Air Yeezy_m $ 45--- T-Shirt_m $ 25 --- Jacket_m $ 36--- Hoody_m $ 50 --- Manicure Set $20 ... Company launched New Year carnival as long as the purchase of up to 200, both exquisite gift, surprise here, do not miss, welcome friends from all circles to come to order..,For details, please consult http://www.coolforsale.com
But what's also missing from the discussion is a knowledge of history, and I know of no one who has done a more outstanding job of reminding people of this than Ben Bagdikian.
Here's just part of what he has to say about the history of objectivity, as found in a lengthy excerpt from a book he wrote in 1983 (!) and posted in Third World Traveler:
"The standard version of "objectivity" holds that it was created to end nineteenth-century sensationalism. To a large extent it did, and that alone made it appealing to serious journalists. "Objectivity" demanded more discipline of reporters and editors because it expected every item to be attributed to some authority. No traffic accident could be reported without quoting a police sergeant. No wartime incident was recounted without confirmation from government officials. 'Objectivity" increased the quantity of literal facts in the news, and it did much to strengthen the growing sense of discipline and ethics in journalism.
But the new doctrine was not truly objective. Different individuals writing about the same scene never produce precisely the same account. And the way "objectivity" was applied exacted a high cost from journalism and from public policy.
With all its technical advantages, "objectivity" contradicted the essentially subjective nature of journalism. Every basic step in the journalistic process involves a value-laden decision: Which of the infinite number of events in the environment will be assigned for coverage and which ignored? Which of the infinite observations confronting the reporter will be noted? Which of the facts noted will be included in the story? Which of the reported events will become the first paragraph? Which story will be prominently displayed on page 1 and which buried inside or discarded? None of these is a truly objective decision. But the disciplinary techniques of "objectivity" have the false aura of a science, and this has given almost a century of American journalism an illusion of unassailable correctness."
That's just a taste. You can read all about it @:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media/DemoMedia_Bagdikian.html
Sage, you make some interesting points. i didn't even know about the rewrite man; huh. i guess editors do a fair share of rewrites. very interesting points. thank you.
blackflon -- totally. and what publication doesn't have working/non in its readership? it was a senseless statement.
it is bonnie.
agreed madam; there's a balance. and commonsense is involved.
very true walter. headlines can be misleading at best, and if anyplace, that's where objectivity should be applied. tho we're all competing for fleeting eyeballs. loaded questions ... i think the tv media stands guilty, notsomuch print.
honesty, norwonk, yes. at all times.
i'm totally self-serving at all times brian, haha. thanks.
thanks manhattan; i'll watch the tube in a few.
thanks jeremiah for that info! i didn't know that - and it's just from 1983 -- not so long ago. makes a lot of sense. can't even imagine covering an accident without an official's input (but oh, wouldn't it be fun!). thanks for that lesson, and the author info. appreciated.
you're right eric; it can't be thrown away. but the bbc does make me yawn. bloggers are so interesting to read, but i think it's because so much of their personality and analysis is inserted. the media, well, there some good outlets, some bad, like anything else. the thing is to read/listen/watch actively, with a critical eye.
thanks good daughter. can't believe that reporter was fired either. hopefully the publicity will help him get a new job fast.
However, having said that, I agree with sagemerlin. The job of "reporters" is to report what appears to be happening. s/he cannot know the truth by mere observation, that is the job of those who study the clues, follow the trail of material evidence. That, if there is any reason to analyze, is the job of the OpEd people, IF, and this sia big IF, they are neutral and follow the evidence.
The other night I heard some morn speaking about Coyotes eating dogs and cats, after a "vicious" attack by Coyotes. Wild animals hunting dinner are not vicious, they are hunting for themselves and their pups. Are we "Vicious" when we ask a butcher to cut us a steak or two? Animals are merely doing what God has wrought within them, the will to live. Reporters are seldom more than casual observers, who got there too late to see the action, therefore are generally devoid of valuable information.
Nice job of reporting, by the way.
The problem is that it's harder to be totally objective but that doesn't make it impossible. In today's money controlled world where the bad news can effect stockholders and the CEO's returns and bonuses, being objective is 'impractical' but not impossible.
News broadcasts of old were very objective at times. Just state the facts and let the consumer of those facts draw their own conclusions. People are generally smart enough (well SOME people are) to be able to follow along and get the message. In today's news, it's like a laugh track on a sitcom, we are TOLD what the information means and TOLD how to react. To make 'news' more 'objective', you have to get the opinion and disinfotainment out of the delivery. It's Glenn Frey's 'Dirty Laundry' mixed with runaway capitalism...
I still think that the 'fairness doctrine' is needed again. I did get into a discussion with Bill Moyers on this topic. We didn't even come close to seeing it eye-to-eye... If you can't tell broadcasters that their disinfotainment must be correct, then make them do it... There would be a lot less global warming deniers if there were the rule that opposing viewpoints have to be broadcast. Don't you?
I imagine that the birthers wouldn't exist.
You are entitled to your own opinions (Fox News) but not your own facts! Especially when they are dressed as facts...
fairness, yes, gonzoid. total objectivity is hard to achieve. i think mist reporters do strive for it. and fairness absolutely. but i've seen personality get in the way. it does happen. sound judgment, and smart editors make a difference. with smaller and smaller news staffs it's getting harder and harder.