Objectivity

What is the true definition of objectivity? And, how does objectivity provide a framework for you to function ethically as a journalist?

My understanding of objectivity has changed a lot over the past year.  My idea of what objectivity meant was, I'm sure, what most people believe it means today; letting go of absolutely all of your personal beliefs, opinions, values, or perspectives.  I thought that to be a good journalist, you have to be completely neutral.  I understand now that having a unique and individual worldview does not mean that one has a bias or prejudice in reporting.  In fact, the beliefs and values that make you unique as a person will make your reporting unique as well.  If we abandon our worldviews, reporting would be inorganic and frankly, boring.  Complete objectivity does not exist, and journalists are not free of bias.  The true definition of objectivity is a consistent method of testing information.  It is a transparent approach to evidence so that personal and cultural biases do not undermine the accuracy of one's work. 

Objectivity provides a framework for me to function ethically as a journalists by giving me a method to gather information accurately and transparently.  Although I may not be objective, my method should be.  Here are five questions I can ask myself to see if my method is objective.

1) Am I adding anything that was not there?

2) Am I deceiving the audience?

3) Am I being as transparent as possible about my methods and motives?

4) Am I relying on my own original reporting?

5) Am I exercising humility?   

Surely these questions do not cover everything, but they offer a basic framework that allows for objective reporting.  

What are your motivations in becoming a journalist?

I admit that I have not always wanted to become a journalist.  I did not grow up cutting out my favorite newspaper articles or doing fake newscasts with hairbrush microphones.  But I do know now that this is the career for me.  I want to be a journalist for many reasons.  Perhaps the biggest one is to serve the public and make society better.

Journalists can serve as watchdogs to the government and business leaders.  They can put corrupt people to justice as well as highlight the good many people do throughout the community.  As a journalist, I want to right the wrongs and make my community a better place.  

Another motivation is that I have always been fascinated by the world around me.  It is my dream to travel the world, learn about different cultures, learn new languages, and meet new people.  So perhaps it is a certain sense of adventure that motivates me in becoming a journalist.  Yes I want to inform the public accurately about events they might otherwise not know, but being there and experiencing the news first-hand excites me.

I absolutely love the story Anderson Cooper tells of his experience in Croatia as a freelance journalist.

"I'd just set up my tripod when I heard a loud crack.  I turned and saw a tile fall off a nearby column.  But the time it hit the ground, I realized that it had been struck by a bullet.  Someone had taken a shot... I captured some of it on camera, and narrated what I was seeing.  I was white as a corpse.  When I looked at the tape recently, though, I saw something I hadn't remembered.  I noticed the faint hint of a smile on my face."

The thought of being a part of it all, making connections with people, and making my community better brings the biggest smile to my face.     

Blowing the facts out of proportion

A couple years ago, news of the H1N1 virus, or swine flu, seemed to take over news media.  Every news station had dramatic reports about how this new, never-before-seen virus has mutated and was likely to infect millions of people.  It was called a "pandemic" and news organizations hosted experts on infectious diseases to warn citizens everywhere to take care and be vaccinated.

I remember being afraid of getting this flu.  I remember talking with my fellow students and hearing rumors about school being closed in the future because of the "pandemic."

Looking back, I believe that stories about the H1N1 virus were completely blown out of proportion.  The facts were not always necessarily false, but it was covered so much that it was taken to be something bigger and more serious than it was.  News stations used dramatic language and reported on deaths, when in reality, thousands more people died every year from the normal flu than from the few that died from the H1N1 virus.  

In fact, both of my little brothers contracted the swine flu, and only suffered from mild symptoms for a day or two.  

I think that news organizations should have presented the facts in proportion to how the swine flu compares to the normal seasonal flu's   This would have put the severity of the virus in perspective.  Yes, it was a dramatic and new sickness, but it did not deserve the amount of coverage it received.  

CNN even acknowledged that journalists needed to be more careful about how much they talk about it, and what they tell the citizens.

I think they did a good job of explaining what the virus does and how it can affect people, while also not blowing it out of proportion like other networks.

“Journalism is our modern cartography. It creates a map for citizens to navigate society. That is its utility and its economic reason for being. This concept of cartography helps clarify the question of what journalism has a responsibility to cover. As with any map, journalism’s value depends on it completeness and proportionality” (208).

How can journalists make the significant interesting, without making it sensational?

Police find Mitt Romney practicing witchcraft with Brazilian prostitute

...Just kidding.  I hate to trick you like this, but really, wouldn't this be an amazingly interesting story?  I must admit that I find sensationalism rather entertaining.  Do I want to hear more when a broadcaster tells me my skinny jeans could kill me?  Am I curious as to what new spells Mitt is casting lately?  Yes.  Do I recognize that it is ridiculous?  I like to think so.  

Sensationalism is a type of bias in the media in which news stories are enhanced, dramatized, and the truth is stretched in order to increase viewership or readership.  Yes, it is entertaining, but it is simply not reliable news.  

Journalists may be tempted to stretch the truth or tell a story in a way that will draw readers in.  And writing an engaging and relevant story is important, but there must be a balance.  Journalists should first and foremost seek the truth.  Then they can work on writing the story in a compelling way.  Our textbook puts it this way:  "Journalism is storytelling with a purpose.  That purpose is to provide people with the information they need to understand the world.  The first challenge is finding the information that people need to live their lives.  The second is to make it meaningful, relevant, and engaging" (189).

So how do they do this?  How do they make the significant interesting without making it sensational?  First, they can start off by asking these questions:

1) What's the story really about?

2) Who is the audience for this story and what information do these people need to know to make up their own minds about the subject?

3) Who has the information?

4) What's the best way to tell the story?

It is my opinion that the quality of the story depends so much on the effort the journalist puts into it.  It is so important to be creative and think about what way is the best way to go about writing the story.  Perhaps the best way to write the story is not in the typical inverted pyramid form.  There are many different approaches one can take, such as a profile, a narrative, or even a Q&A.  Think of which option will be most relevant to the topic and to the audience.  Make an effort to develop characters and use compelling quotes.  News doesn't have to be boring, and an interesting, colorful story doesn't have to be fiction.  

It may be tricky, but journalists can write interesting and relevant stories without creating sensationalism.  Yes, gossip and scandal is entertaining.  But the world around us is fascinating enough without being embellished.  

Journalism as a public forum

“Journalists must provide a forum for public criticism and compromise” (Kovach & Rosenstiel 166).

Debate and argument is everywhere. Media outlets present issues and conflict everyday. However, more often than not, the issues are presented as polarized extremes that exclude the majority of citizens who reside in the middle of the spectrum. These outlets also tend to focus on their opinions rather than the news.
Journalists should provide a public forum with an emphasis on facts and verification. When journalists inform the public on issues, it encourages judgement. The public hears the issues and reacts throughout the community. Their voices are heard on the radio, talk shows, opinion editorials, and blogs.

“I’m very much inspired by this culture of people who believe that journalism should be about raising hell in an intelligent way. But I don’t mean throwing a brick at someone’s head and saying ‘Yeah, yeah, you’re a jerk.’ You should really be provoking people to think – challenging them to justify and defend their ideas, just as I have to justify and defend mine” (Jon Katz).

An example of this is when Jon Stewart appeared on an episode of Crossfire. He criticized them for not allowing actual debate and being partisan hacks.

"Unless the forum is based on a foundation of fact and context, the questions citizens ask will become simply rhetorical. The debate will cease to educate; it will only reinforce the prejudgments people arrive with. The public will be less able to participate in solutions. Public discourse will dissolve into noise, which the majority of the public will tune out. The worry is not the wondrous addition of citizen media, but the decline of full-time, professional monitoring of powerful institutions. The forum must adhere to all other journalistic principles" (Kovach & Rosenstiel 184).


I believe that journalists should provide a forum for public criticism and compromise because they are the only people who can effectively find out if assertions of arguments are actually true.  They are the only ones who can investigate the backgrounds and motives of various factions.  A forum without a regard to facts cannot inform.  Talk is cheap, and opinion has taken over the media.  Truth and verification in a public forum is more important now than ever.  

Investigative Journalism

“Investigative reporting’s roots were firmly established in the very first periodicals, in the earliest notions of the meaning of a free press and the First Amendment, and in the motivation of journalists throughout the profession’s history. These roots are so strong, they form a fundamental principle: journalists must serve as an independent monitor of power” (Kovach & Rosenstiel 140). Journalists since the very beginning have played a role as a watchdog. Their duty is to "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable," and to hold powerful interests accountable.  By doing this, journalists have withheld the standard of democracy and freedom.  Investigative Journalism has played an important role in my life as well as many others.

The investigative reporting of the NY Times and the Washington Post of the Pentagon Papers led to the lawsuit NY Times Co. v. United States and eventually resulted in the landmark decision that made it possible for the newspapers to publish the classified documents without government censorship. This victory has made it possible for journalists throughout the US to investigate those in power and continue to act as watchdogs.

One investigative piece that has influenced my life is entitled "Violated: 'Broken' system fails elderly abuse victims" written by investigative reporter Brad Schrade of the Star Tribune.  This story shows how federal records demonstrated that reports of abuse of elderly victims in Minnesota have fallen short.  The article and it's proof of the neglect of Minnesota nursing homes has led to the closing of the Good Samaritan home, whose workers tormented and abused the residents.

http://www.startribune.com/local/123163388.html

This report influences me because I am from Minnesota.  I have been to this nursing home and spoken to residents there in my past.  I have relatives in homes such as the one in the story and it has opened my eyes about how few regualtions there are in the treatment of the residents.  It is shocking to me the horror of their situation and I would not have known about this if it weren't for the investigation.  This report has made the abused residents situation better, and will hopefully hold those responsible accountable.

Journalism and Neutrality

          Journalists are never free of bias. Each person has different life experiences, different cultures, grew up in different places in different social classes. But they still have the responsibility to be transparent and accurate in their journalism. However, journalists should not be neutral, and neutrality does not necessarily mean a story is true or unbiased. When it is impossible to check your bias, perspective, or worldview at the door, one may question how it is even possible to accurately cover the news. However, objectivity is not to step away from your bias. Instead, it is a consistent, transparent method of testing your facts. When we realize that journalists, no matter what, will have different worldviews, we can instead focus on how to still report accurate and truthful stories despite these differences. Even though a journalist has an opinion, they can still be accurate if they stick to the facts above all else and have an unwavering dedication to the truth. This is done by following this set of concepts outlined in "The Elements of Journalism."

1. Never add anything that was not there

2. Never deceive the audience

3. Be as transparent as possible about your methods and motives

4. Rely on your own original reporting

5. Exercise humility

          By recognizing that journalists mustn't be neutral and that objectivity is a method rather than an aim, I have a higher respect for the news when it is accurate and I understand better what it takes to produce truthful stories. As Journalists, we should embrace our beliefs and perspectives without promoting them to the reader/audience

          "In the end it is good judgment, and an abiding commitment to the principle of first allegiance to citizens, that separates the journalist from the partisan. Having an opinion is not only allowable, not only natural, but it is valuable to the natural skepticism with which any good reporter approaches a story. But a journalist must be smart enough and honest enough to recognize that opinion must be based on something more substantial than personal beliefs if it is to be of journalistic use” (Kovach & Rosenstiel).

http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2007/10/giving-objectivity-a-bad-name/