kasey simpson wrote: > > Catherine asked: > Rhetorical question: can journalism be completely objective? > > I've been meaning to answer this for some time. My gut reaction > is no. Unless the person in question hasn't formed an opinon on > the subject they are covering. I think that's why the reader has > to read all views to come to the best (not right or wrong) informed > opinon they can.
I agree with you, Kasey, that it's important to read as many views as possible. I disagree, though, on your comment about reporters. A reporter's job is to NOT come up with their own opinion (or if they do, to keep it to themself). A columnist/commentator's job is to formulate an opinion and share it. Two very different jobs. Two very different agendas. The aim of the reporter is to inform; the aim of the columnist is to persuade. Of course, there's some overlap. Sometimes a reporter will get into analyzing the situation as well as reporting it, and when that's done there's usually an "analysis" heading in the article, or at least there is in the NYTimes, or it's made clear in the TV or radio newscast that the speaker is giving her or his personal opinion. And, of course, columnists give some factual information that can be useful to the reader in making up her own mind about things. With columnists, it's extremely important to keep in mind that the information they give is meant to bolster their particular view, so some "facts" will be left out, others will be highlighted, other facts, if they must be included, will be modified to fit the writer's biased perspective. As was made clear in the recent set-to onlist, even a historical fact can be twisted to fit a writer's agenda. So there's a huge difference in the goal of an article by a reporter and the goal of an opinion piece by a columnist or commentator. That's why the editorial page of a newspaper is separate from the front page, that's why there are "columnists", that's why there are "reporters". Ideally, as I understand it from Journalism 101, reporters attempt to objectively describe within the first paragraph or two the "who, what, where, and when" of the situation they're covering, and then perhaps go on to "why", usually by getting lots of people's comments. The GOAL is to be objective. Since reporters are human and seeing the world through their particular eyes objectivity is not absolutely possible. However, objectivity is the goal and the aim of their writing is to inform. So at the end of reading a reporter's article, different views would be given and the reader is left with a lot of information and must draw her or his own conclusions. Read the long articles in the NYTimes or any mainstream newspaper and you'll see what I mean. Sometimes there's so much information, much of it conflicting within the same article, that it's impossible to draw any definitive conclusions. That, to me, is the sign of a "good" or "great" article. That aim of being objective in reporting is also the reason that comments and the facts used need to be verifiable, and the sources "real", at least in the mainstream press. The information has to stand up to worldwide scrutiny. That is the complete opposite of the responsibility of a columnist. The aim in commentary is to persuade, not to inform, and the assumption in that type of writing is that the "facts" will be used to further that writer's agenda. So, when reading columnists, it's always important to keep the propaganda aspect of the writer's intentions in mind. There is absolutely NO aiming for objectivity. And that's across the political spectrum. The columnist I most often agree with is Paul Krugman in the NYTimes. Even reading his columns, though, I always keep in mind that he's probably not telling everything there is to tell about any particular issue. He is trying to persuade people to his view, not to objectively inform people of all aspects of an issue. That's the job of reporters. Also, when reading anything, it's helpful to know the publication it was printed in because some publications have a clear-cut bias and the editors would choose to present things in a certain way. An article on homelessness would probably be on the front page of the "liberal/left-leaning" Village Voice, for example, and mentioned on the inner pages of the "conservative/right-wing" NY Post, if the information was considered newsworthy at all by those editors. Two of my favorite columnists from the Village Voice are Nat Hentoff and James Ridgeway. As much as I like their way of thinking and the way they write, I'd never post one of their columns and claim they were presenting the facts. Not only are they columnists, they're writing for a paper that, in general, presents a left-wing view of the world. The U.S. mainstream papers and reporters that people quote so often, NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, Boston Globe, aim to be middle of the road, that is, objective not only in the reporters' articles, but also in giving space to all the different issues and opinions of the day. That is the goal of the publishers and editors of those papers, and deliberately biased writing is kept on the editorial pages. Again, that is the goal. Deciding on what goes above the fold, or what photo to put with a particular article, are all human decisions and it's impossible to be 100% objective when making such decisions. I know that at the NYTimes (and probably other papers), the editors as a group make those decisions every day. That is another way, in addition to verifiability, that they attempt to make their presentation of the news as objective as possible. The short of it all is to read everything with a critical eye and take everything with a grain of salt. It's impossible even in a multi-page article that aims for objectivity to give every bit of any story. As far as posting items to the list goes, I think it's important, and intellectually honest, to specify the type of article as well as the writer and the publication, and if known, the bias of both. There are ways for anyone to find out the writer's bias and when posted items have been extremely skewed to one viewpoint, I've investigated. There's not always time for such investigation, though, and it seems to me the sender is the one who needs to be upfront about that bias and avoid presenting anything as being the whole truth. No one article, newscast, opinion will ever be the whole truth. Debra Shea
