The True Definition of Objectivity

I believe the true definition of objectivity is a method of delivering the news which is clear-eyed, factual, and free of agenda. As we've learned in class, that doesn't necessarily mean ridding ourselves, as journalists, of our individual beliefs and worldviews, but instead it means not letting those aspects of  our lives dictate how we report. I believe that an objective story is one which presents the facts of an event in their entirety, compiled compellingly yet free of manipulation or any attempt to indoctrinate. This doesn't mean that the story can't be reflective of the writer's beliefs. 

As this image suggests, I believe it's necessary for journalists to strike as balanced a tone as possible in their writing, so long as it doesn't dilute the importance or impact of a story. I think this story from the Los Angeles Times is a good example of a balanced, clear-eyed look at an incredibly important ongoing event in our country. The writers take no clear sides, but do well to portray the pressing nature of the story as well as the differing viewpoints of the parties involved. I think objectivity provides a framework for ethical behavior, as it stresses providing the public with factual information which they can then interpret. This, I think, is journalism's most important professional, social, and ethical responsibility.

My Motivations for Journalism

I think the most significant motivation I hold for wanting to be a journalist is the effect I think it can have on society. I've always been deeply interested in politics, and as I have grown older, there are many issues which I have come to be very passionate about. Professional journalism puts the journalist at the head of the public forum, in a position to influence in a way they see to be right. I've always been interested in stories of people who sacrificed material possessions in pursuit of a higher truth, and I think for me journalism has emerged as that pursuit. It isn't the most promising career if one has aspirations of wealth, but it offers a role in society few other professions can.


I hope that one day I can say I made a difference in society, and through the lives and work of famous journalists, I can see that possibility. Walter Cronkite is just one of many journalists who have made incredible societal contributions, although arguably the most well-known. At the end of his career, Cronkite had come to be known as "the most trusted man in America." I think this is indicative of the kind of effect a journalist can have, and the responsibility they hold in the public square. So I think that is the foremost motivation I have for wanting to be a journalist; that one day I might be able to reflect and see my hand in positive change in society.

Journalists Blowing Facts Out of Proportion

I think one of the best examples of a news organization blowing the facts out of proportion happened just in recent months, as the Presidential campaign was still ongoing. While speaking at a campaign event in Roanoake, Virginia, President Obama said the following:

"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business—you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."

 

 

 

His remark was intended to highlight how the infrastructure and overall social organization of the United States provides an easier path to individual success. However, Fox News interpreted the quote (which they usually clipped down to the last two sentences) as an assault on success and indicative of socialist ideology, devoting over two hours of coverage to the quote alone.

 

 

If Fox had reported the entire quote, in context, the fallout would have been much different. Their reports outraged conservatives, and eventually determined the theme of the Republican National Convention. This is just another example of the negative effect an increasingly partisan media has on the public's knowledge of the truth.

Journalism as a Public Forum

I absolutely believe journalists should provide a public forum and a marketplace of ideas. Freedom of the press is essential to democracy, and in turn, the press should use that freedom to promote democracy and public involvement. We can observe several aspects of modern society where journalism has become much more of an open discussion, rather than a writer merely relating the facts. These aspects include blogs, news integration in Twitter and Facebook, and even the comment sections on news articles.

Here we can see the author a news story inviting the audience to respond.

 

In the Republican primaries, several candidates fielded questions in a virtual Twitter "debate," signaling a shift in the country's culture regarding politics and interaction with candidates. Whereas the press had previously held the power to question candidates and report on their positions, the changing technological landscape has allowed the citizens a much more involved role in government. Journalists would be best served to acknowledge this shift of power, and invite an atmosphere of public involvement in their work. A stronger citizen presence in the news means a stronger democracy.

"Comforting the Afflicted and Afflicting the Comfortable"

Journalists, as part of their watchdog role, are to "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable." This is one of the driving forces behind much of investigative journalism, and can alter the way we view prominent individuals or organizations. One investigative work that has influenced my life is Jon Krakauer's "Three Cups of Deceit," an article exposing dishonesty in the charitable work of bestselling writer Greg Mortensen.

Many people I knew had read Mortensen's books, which chronicled his travels to the Middle East, and subsequent efforts to raise money for schools to be built there. They admired his work, or at least the work he claimed he had done. However, Krakauer's article, coupled with an investigative report by CBS' "6o Minutes," refuted many of the claims which Mortensen had made. It was an eye-opening experience for me in regards to being an informed citizen, as I could see how easily the wool could be pulled over an entire audiences eyes. I think it's vital that journalists adhere to their watchdog role and "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable," because it helps society discern between truth and half-truth, or perceive flat-out lies. Many people had been deceived by Mortensen's work, and had contributed to his charity. It is important that people are informed about the organizations or individuals whom they support.



Journalists' Neutrality

 Many people believe that the only way to accurately report news is to take no sides, relate the facts and nothing more, and to be completely neutral. This is not the case. As we read in the Elements of Journalism book, neutrality is not a core principle of journalism. News can still be reported effectively when opinions are involved. As long as the facts are being reported, and there is an adherence to truthfulness, journalists should be free to express their perspective, which in turn allows the audience to develop their own. We can see this in action through the opinion pages of major newspapers like the Washington Post. Opinion is clearly expressed, but all argument is based on fact. Most would agree that the Post is a reputable news source, and they offer several opinion columns.

This affects my perspective on the news in many ways. In the book, it talked about how modern news media often plays to the preconceptions of the audience, and I think that's very evident. I tend to lean a little left of center, so when I read a conservative or liberal opinion column, I often just feel more strongly about my own convictions.  It offers somewhat of a validation, as we see our views corroborated by people who we see as professionals. So I think that, in a way, it reinforces the perspectives that we have formed over our lifetime.

Do Journalists Truly Serve the Citizens?

Due to the vast number of journalists in the world, who all have different viewpoints, motivations, and goals, this is a difficult question to answer. I would say that the majority of journalists do indeed serve the citizens who see or read their work, but they are overshadowed by larger news outlets who may not do as well a job. Nowadays, the public is quite wary of cable news outlets, due to the percieved ideological agendas of these networks. Though it is unfair to say these outlets are representative of "journalists," they have the most prominent voice in many communities. And unfortunately, many of these newscasts practice what the Elements of Journalism book refers to as a "journalism of affirmation." Instead of serving the citizens and offering fair, factual news stories from which to form opinions, they take advantage of the audience's already-held convictions, so the audience can feel validated in their beliefs.

Overtly ideological headlines such as this leave little room for
the audience to interpret the facts on their own.

As we can see in this New York Times/CBS News poll, nearly 80 percent of Fox News viewers who are likely to vote say they will vote Republican. It is no secret that Fox tends to skew right in their ideology. Now, obviously Fox gained a lot of those voters because of its conservative message, but by continuing to serve stories spun to appeal to a far-right base, they are doing a disservice to their audience. The priority of news outlets should be reporting, with the task of interpreting those reports and forming ideologies from them remaining with the audience. If a news organization is so overt in its message that it's nearly impossible to form a dissenting opinion from the facts they present, then they are not serving the citizens, they're serving their business interests.