Objectivity: The myth

I was party to an interesting debate today regarding the issues of practicing journalists offering their opinions to the world outside the boundaries of their workplaces. More specifically, a fellow colleague of the trade expressed a certain degree of surprise that I would put my views out for the world to see, given that I am a journalist and a certain expectation exists that I remain an objective member of the journalistic community.

What ensued was a very constructive discussion that spanned a spectrum of viewpoints. One participant believes a journalist should have no participation in any sort of political debate or movement, and he totally rules out the idea of signing petitions or waving any sort of political colors. His argument made me think a lot about my stance on the subject, and my motivations and purpose on this blog.

First, some history. When I first entered journalism school as an idealistic, bright-eyed participant in an establishment that I view as vital to our democracy, I swore off any political leanings and influences. I was, by definition, the Ultimate Nonpartisan, a simple observer who took his duty of viewing and reporting the facts to a level verging on ludicrous. I maintained this illusion of complete objectivity for about as long as it took me to realize that this society -- and arguably, this entire world -- is not that black and white.

In a broad sense, objectivity simply doesn't exist. Everything we do as journalists, from word choice to story selection to emphasis on certain elements, is inherently based on a bias of some sort. For instance, why do stories about genocides in Africa get rendered to the back pages, while Britney Spears takes center stage? It's a perceived bias that people are more interested in superficiality than reality, and the media is happy to tap that hunger.

You can also take it one step further. For the most part, a journalist can either write a story people will want to read, or one that is theoretically free of bias. Why? Because language is inherently nonobjective. For proof of this, just scour the newspaper every day and question why certain words were used over others (why a reporter choose the word "criticize" instead of "disagree," for instance). Certain judgments are made by reporters -- how important was the event? How harshly was something criticized? -- and that makes anything contained in a story technically biased. It simply can't be avoided.

The other option is to write a story that is free of any kind of loaded word or phrase, but it would take hours and hours and would be bland to the point of absurdity. In my experience, readers are willing to sacrifice complete linguistic objectivity for a little flavor. And I think generally that's an accepted trade off.

With that in mind, the important issue in journalism is not OBJECTIVITY but FAIRNESS, and the question we should be asking is whether a story takes an appropriate look at both sides of the issue, and especially whether a story is accurate. These two factors greatly outweigh any question of whether a reporter is inherently objective, because as long as a story is fair, the reporter can harbor any personal opinion her or she deems worthy. I think you will find that, because objectivity is impossible, no reporter can achieve the feat of being completely unbiased. But many, many reporters can say they are fair and accurate.

If you look at the history of objectivity, it's not exactly an original belief in the world of journalism, as Robert McChesney writes in "The Problem of the Media." Prior to the 1900s, journalism was the epitome of opinionated thought -- every publication had its viewpoint, and to get the full spectrum of an issue, one would just read all the newspapers. After the 1900s, however, something interesting happened: Corporatism stepped in, and people started to realize the monetary opportunities of the media. Companies began to consolidate, grow bigger, and as a natural result of capitalism, the number of newspapers decreased steadily.

The problem was nobody would accept this new world of journalism, where fewer and fewer publications existed, if they all remained so blatantly partisan. Thus, the idea of "objectivity" was invented to justify the shrinking marketplace, and it became the gold standard for journalism schools. Technically, objectivity is an invention of corporate thought, and a justification for people to have fewer opinions to consume. To sell media conglomeration, people were tricked to believe that objectivity was not only possible but expected.

I could go on for hours about this, but I'm digressing from my main question: Should journalists feel justified in expressing their opinions in a public forum outside the workplace? As I said before, my belief when I first entered J-school was that neutrality in all realms of life was the only ethical path. But as I came to realize, we as journalists don't stop being human just because we have taken a symbolic oath to maintain our integrity in the context of our work. We don't stop having opinions because we chose a path of long hours, little pay and the much larger responsibility of fairly and accurately portraying the news to the public. I came to realize that the real challenge was not maintaining this illusion that I had no opinions, but maintaining a strong sense of character and ethics that is required when you leave your opinions at the door of the workplace. I realized that distinguishing between my opinions on my own time and my opinions when I work was the strongest trait I could possess as a journalist.

I ran with that. I honed that. And I'm happy to say I've developed a strong sense of where to draw the line. I have a firm grip on my own views about the world -- as you can see from this blog, they are quite strong -- and my duty as a journalist to allow readers of a publication to form their own opinions, as I have. I don't want to influence anybody from the perch of the media, which is extremely powerful in guiding thought, because I respect the rights of others to make their own judgments. My views are my views, and they are not shared by everybody. If they were, my world would be a very boring place. But if you think about it, journalists are in a very unique position to be opinionated. We read a lot. We know who believes what. We've seen the arguments. We know what's going on in the world. Who better to weigh in on the why of the world?

The question was raised during our debate about whether it is hypocritical of me to criticize KEZI for inserting partisan politics into a broadcast when I sit down on this blog every night and put forth my opinion, given that I, too, am a journalist. No it doesn't, I argued, because you won't find any relation between this blog and where I work; in fact, I don't mention it at all. I don't blog in an official capacity as a journalist at my respective workplace. I blog in the official capacity that I am an informed journalist concerned about the world, and maybe I have something interesting to say.

As I made clear to my friends, I will never stop expressing my opinion, and I will never stop doing it in public. Even if it became an issue at my workplace, I would fight vehemently for my First Amendment rights. But, given that, they did raise some very interesting points about a journalist's role in the world, and the appropriateness of a journalist expressing an opinion on a public forum. I took their thoughts to heart. It won't change my ways, but as always I'm open to their viewpoints.

And isn't that what makes a great journalist?