Monday, May 14, 2007

Objectivity

Many years ago I was a guest lecturer at a prestigious journalistic think tank in Florida. On one occasion, they invited me to come and share my thoughts on reporting.
I stood up and delivered a lengthy monologue entitled, "The End of Objectivity", or something to that effect. Of course, the title itself set teeth to grinding. After all, if there were a Holy Grail to the reporter's quest, it is the elusive 'objectivity'.
I made two observations. First, even in those pre-Fox News, pre-Limbaugh, pre-Internet days, it was already evident that there was money to be made in partisanship, and thus it was inevitable that media owners would move to that money.
But more important was my attempt to try to draw the distinction between the terms 'objectivity' and 'balance'. Having run newsrooms, I knew the temptation to conflate the two.
Here's a hypothetical example, but one that happened every day. A reporter is sent out to do the classic time or space-filler known then as 'man on the street'. In other words, walk up to random citizens and ask their opinion on a certain hot issue, and record their answers with either your notepad or microphone.
Back then, a typical topic may have been the Equal Rights Amendment for women. Now, as a reporter, you obviously have no control over what people will say. And maybe that day, for whatever reason, 80% of the people you interviewed opposed the Amendment. But you know that if you proportion your story in the paper or on the newscast that way, you're going to be accused of being biased--or, not objective.
So what you put on your newscast are three respondents supporting, and three opposing. Nice, neat, safe, and by definition balanced...but it is not a reflection of the survey you conducted that day, no matter how unscientific it may have been. It does not reflect the objective truth of what happened that day.

The essence of objectivity in journalism is to try to ferret out the truth--not to make people happy or unhappy with your approach. But that's not how it was practiced then--or is now. A classic example is how the mainstream media feels like it has to 'balance' all the 'bad' coverage of the Bush Administration by also showing their 'objectivity' in reporting charges that malign his critics, no matter what the underlying truth of those charges might be.
In fact, the evidence of this misplaced objectivity is still evident every day.

And to finish the story of my enlightening lecture to those reporters those many years ago: I was never invited back.

diderot

No comments: