Filed under: J840 Week 4, Society + Media | Tags: Advocacy, citizen journalist, journalism bias, objective journalism, scientific method in journalism, trojan horse
Is there such a thing as objective journalism anymore when a story involves more than a few individuals?
I could report on what the climate bill contains, for example. I can write about what the environmental activists say, and I can write about what the oil and gas industries think of that. I would have presented a story objectively. I can sleep peacefully at night, knowing I have acted with integrity. But have I? Do I really know all there is to know about the “facts” given to me by the activist or by the industry? How much of their opinions did I reproduce? At what point did my own subjective biases creep in? And how much of those biases have I explicitly mentioned in the story?
While an admirable goal, objective journalism is hard, requires extensive investigation over long periods, and the conclusions that consumers draw from a story can very likely be ones that the corporation paying the journalist does not like. Or worse, it may bring down ratings. To add to the difficulty, the journalist’s own opinions seep through, even if they’re not acknowledged.
Not exactly the kind of reporting that can be easily sustained in today’s 24 hour, real-time media frenzy.
With the advent of the “citizen journalist“, who has a vested interest in expressing his or her own opinion, there is an even lesser impetus to maintain objectivity in journalism.
So what we get is pseudo-objectivity. A trojan horse.

Advocacy journalism has a real place in today’s world. When it’s used for something good, it leads to a greater awareness of issues that don’t get the attention they deserve – environmental damage, homelessness, poverty, discrimination, a broken education system, abuse of power, health care mismanagement, etc. When it’s bad, you get Bill O’Reilly and Keith Olbermann.
For true objectivity in journalism, it is important for a journalist to be aware of his or her biases and follow a scientific method that will eliminate them in the reporting. It is also important to declare those biases so the reader can make the final decision.
Victor V
4 Comments so far
Leave a comment
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Victor, you bring up a great point – in today’s fast-paced, around-the-clock media environment, objective journalism has become even more difficult. Additionally, journalists are under increasing pressure to boost ratings or circulation. It seems that journalists have a lot going against them before they even go out to cover a story. I only see this becoming more of an issue as these demands and pressures intensify.
You suggested that journalists follow a scientific method when covering a story – is it possible in today’s environment?
~Pauline H
Comment by paulineah July 10, 2009 @ 9:45 pmPauline,
Thanks for the comment.
I really believe it is possible. In addition to the journalists that Philip Meyer refers to in his article, there are several others that you’d find in magazines such as “The Atlantic”, “New Yorker”. The stories here usually are in-depth, provide a balanced view, explore alternative viewpoints and come to conclusions based on evidence. But it’s time-consuming, and it’s hard work.
As search and communication technologies improve, I believe the scientific method can be used more widely and efficiently even in a fast-paced environment. We can already see some of it today in the online versions of newspapers like the WSJ and NYT, where corrections to stories are made in real time based on comments or feedback from readers.
-Victor V
Comment by victorvi July 11, 2009 @ 9:38 pmVictor, your reference to scientific method caught my eye. Check out the link below for a fascinating study on media bias. Also ties to your comment on my post; look for the references to PBS and NPR inside the study. Enjoy!
-PegC.
Comment by margaretec July 10, 2009 @ 10:01 pmhttp://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx
Thank you, Peg. This is a really cool article on bias. I was so fascinated by it that I went back to the original paper that Groseclose and Milyo wrote. Some of the data was very counter-intuitive though, like the rating of WSJ.
Comment by victorvi July 11, 2009 @ 8:54 pm