The Objective One

"Certainly you have opinions – all human beings have their personal opinions. But it is the ideal of journalism that we strive for objectivity so we can best present the positions of people around all parts of the debate to our public so the public can make their own decisions about these issues."  This quote by NPR CEO Vivian Schiller, found in the article at http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Editorial-Board-Blog/2010/1022/Juan-Williams-firing-Does-journalism-need-more-objectivity-or-more-transparency, seems to bring us full circle back to the first day of class when we discussed that the purpose of the journalist is to inform the public so that they are capable of making their own decisions.  Apparently, the key to a journalist fulfilling this obligation is through objectivity. As an aspiring journalist, I suppose that first I, along with other aspiring journalists, ought to first understand what objectivity is.  According to our book, The Elements of Journalism, the new definition of objectivity includes thoroughness, accuracy, and fairness.  Objectivity encompasses a sort of reporting in which you simply show people your facts – you then allow them to make discoveries for themselves. 

I find myself wondering, however, if objectivity is really possible.  I found this quote by David Brooks to be quite interesting: “I think there is truth out there and that objectivity is like virtue; it’s the thing you always fall short of, but the thing you always strive toward.”  (See the article at http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/media/me0054.html)  I also thought it was interesting to compare the ways that Brooks’ article with the ones the group presented to us in class.  The presentation gave us points such as never adding anything that was not originally there, never deceiving the audience, being as transparent as possible, relying on our own original reporting, and exercising humility.  Brooks, on the other hand, gave steps for objectivity including suspending judgement while looking at the facts, being modest, being able to process data, being able to betray friends, being able to overlook stereotypes, and being willing to sometimes be a little dull. Personally, I find that the steps from the book seem to be a little more predictable and doable.  Brooks tips are sort of nerve-wracking but plausible. 

Yet, it makes me wonder how objective I really want to be.  Do I really want to be able to betray my friends?  I certainly do not want to be dull.  But, this is the calling I have chosen in life, one that might just require some betrayal and occasionally a lack of excitement in my writing.  By no means do I expect myself to be perfect, but like everything else, even when objectivity is the last thing I want to strive towards, I will have the ever-burning desire to be successful, and therefore, to my editor’s delight, I will find my ways to be objective.

Journalists: a storyteller, a historian, and an actor

            This week, we had the immense pleasure of getting to hear from Don Meyers in our class.  Meyers explained that journalists have a different worldview – that they are storytellers at hear, historians with a sense of justice, and they try to understand how government works and point it out when it isn’t.  I particularly appreciated his comparison of journalists to storytellers, because this is how I see myself.  To me, the world is a big picture book, waiting to be explored, have all the little flaps lift up, and the stories behind each color, shape, and person uncovered.  The world is a fascinating place and my goal is to uncover it and tell everyone about what I find.  Also, journalists are historians both in that they have to be informed on history to make a point, and in the fact that they are making history with each word they write. 

            Meyers also said that journalists are forced to ask the hard questions of how and why.  This can be a pain – it would often be so much easier to leave a story at the simple facts, and most readers would not think anything of it.  It is so important, however, to figure out why the story really matters and to report it to the public so that they can be free and self-governing. I found these two journalists practices of interviewing highly interesting:  http://www.ajr.org/article.asp?id=676 (refer particularly to the 2^nd paragraph) and http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/blogspotting/archives/2006/05/why_journalists_1.html.  This second article made a point that I had never before considered.  This author said that journalists should act ignorant when conducting interviews because the person they are interviewing most likely knows more than they do.  I raise the question, however, would interviewees be more apt to give information to someone that seems less able than they or to someone that seems like an intellectual equal who would appreciate the information they share?  Any thoughts?

Ah, how journalism is changing

            This week’s group presentation brought up an interesting point.  A quote by Nick Clooney states “if it comes down to a matter of loyalty, my loyalty will be to the person who turns on the television set.”  This is, ideally, a great idea.  I raise the question, however, of how valid this is for the general community of journalists.  I think it would be fabulous if all journalists truly wrote for what the public wanted and needed to hear.  But all too often, especially in an economy like the one we’re in today, I would expect journalists to find themselves writing for their editors; or, writing what the high-paying advertisers want to see in order to get their advertisements and money.  Now, I may stand corrected.  Perhaps I am just cynical. Perhaps I am wrongly under the impression that many journalists are evil and will give us only the information convenient for them to give us.  I may very well be wrong, but maybe all us journalists need to take a step back and look at the reasons we are truly writing those articles.

"We have to remember that, at the very end, the paper and the word are the core business and the strength of print media. Focusing on words means ability to give readers the background and the depth analysis when conveying meaning of what happens more powerfully and exactly than moving pictures. In today's turbulent world, the quality newspapers' capability of explaining what is happening, what is behind the news and where does it lead us will be the real strength of our operations."

(http://www.wan-press.org/ce/previous/2001/congress.forum/forum/valkaaja.html)

            Another interesting concept is the effects of the ownership of multiple companies by news organizations.  For example, I would reference http://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart/main. This website lists media conglomerates – something I never realized was so huge.  Disney owns ABC, ESPN, Good Morning America, and ESPN Magazine, to name a few.  This severely limits the information that Disney can cover.  It also limits what viewers that view these programs will see.  When one views something produced by one of the many branches of Disney-owned corporations, they will be bombarded with Disney propaganda.  Is this necessarily a bad thing though? As more media companies combine, we are able to get more accurate media.  This is because these companies are highly successful so they can afford to do more extravagant and in-depth research and better coverage.  If all we had was thousands of small, independent companies, our news would be terribly scattered and diverse.  So, although massive organizations like Disney might bring us a slightly more biased coverage, is it necessarily detrimental? You decide for yourself.