Objectivity: Bob Woodward Of The Washington Post

Objectivity - A word ironically enough, subjective to the person choosing to define it. Acknowledging it or the lack of it has often been a cause of debate amongst journalists and the publics to which they cater. Debatable, contested, criticized and often inconclusive, the idea of objectivity has long been strived for in the hopes of promoting the ‘truth’ and upholding the interest of the public. Michael Bugeja a Journalism professor at the Iowa State University defines it as ‘seeing the world as it is, not how [one wishes] it was”, Bob Woodward of the Washington Post sees it as a way that can trip us on the way to “truth” (Cunningham, 2008) and writer George Orwell saw it as an intellectual honesty and balanced judgment that seemed non-existent. Three individuals, three perspectives, all paralleling the fundamental pursuit of the “simple truth”. With these varied opinions, one questions if objectivity is simply a utopian construct, if it simply an idea to strive by and keep journalists in line or is it perhaps outdated and unachievable concept that needs to be explored further in order to reach a more conclusive definition. With the turn of the 21st century revolutionizing the way news is produced and consumed, one asks if objectivity is still as sought after by journalists and their publics or has a new and more achievable concept surpassed it.

This essay delves into the history of this philosophical concept specifically in relation to American journalism not only in the attempts to define it but also draw out some of the problematic and intricate complexities that made and make it hard to

achieve.
Every aspect of the newspaper was re-examined to
“discover whether it might not
be
an uneconomic use
of
space-meaning, by
uneconomic, inferior in its power to interest the reader”
Every aspect of the newspaper was re-examined to
“discover whether it might not
be
an uneconomic use
of
space-meaning, by
uneconomic, inferior in its power to interest the reader”

Every aspect of the newspaper was re-examined to
“discover whether it might not
be
an uneconomic use
of
space-meaning, by
uneconomic, inferior in its power to interest the reade
While the news cultures of many European nations embraced the notion of competing narratives (Alterman, 2008) for different political communities, the first glimpses of objectivity trace themselves all the way back to the latter part of the 19th century in the United States emerging from the preceded concept of ‘realism’. Realism emerged at a time when journalism was separating itself from political affiliations and journalists believed that their duty to simply structure the facts would reveal the ‘truth’ on itself. The invention of the ‘inverted pyramid’ reporting structure (which structured importance) paralleled this concept where the structure of facts helped audiences understand things naturally (Walter, 2013). However, at turn of the century many journalists wondered if perhaps realism was too ‘naïve’.

In 1919, the coverage on the Russian revolution by American journalists was criticized by Walter Lippmann and Charles Merz, associate editors for the New York World. Both believed that the cultural blinders and prejudices had distorted their reporting and they were weary of their roles as press agents in a time of rising propaganda (Walter, 2013). One could argue that even the cultural influences of the era added to this new found realization. Freud’s developing theories of the unconscious, Picasso’s experimentation of cubism, Edmund Husserl, developing study of phenomenology gave human subjectivity a greater recognition. This consciousness was felt by journalists as well concluding that their “honest efforts” and “good intentions” were perhaps not enough. Journalists like Walter Lippmann called upon fellow journalists to embody a more ‘scientific spirit’. Lippmann’s solution for journalistic practices was through a unification of method rather than aim - a common intellectual method and a common area of valid fact. (Walter, 2013).” In an era where a faith in science and discovery were celebrated, journalism was being rediscovered and contested to unify by the virtue of discipline. This simply meant that journalism was heading towards making the study of evidence and verification the foundation of its field. It is safe to say that this self-consciousness of a personal and cultural bias (Walter, 2013) is what called for journalists to look into a more consistent method of testing information, a transparent process that would aid in the accuracy of their work. One would assume that this approach would leave a little room for inaccuracy. Instead, its limitations were soon discovered by journalists when they realized how easy it was for the value of objectivity to be used by politicians to present falsehoods to the public (Stavitsky and Dvorkin, 2008).
With the 20th century ridden by world wars and conflict, leading journalists and educators questioned the need for interpretation and description in the stories they wrote. Henry Luce, publisher of Time and Life Magazine believed it was time for journalists to provide a “truthful, comprehensive and intelligent account of the day’s events in a context which [gave] them meaning.” (Stavitsky and Dvorkin, 2008). The 1950’s anti-communist crusade in the United States was perhaps the turning point for many journalists to adopt a more skeptical and interpretive form of reporting. With the World at war, the need for the press to step up to its role of serving public interest and to transmit information between government and its people was the necessity of the hour. Of course exposing controversy, decrypting hidden and political agendas did not sit well with the government. As the media strived to fulfill its duty of serving “public interest”, its relationship with the government became increasingly combative (Stavitsky and Dvorkin, 2008). Politicians fought back by exposing the great commercial value in ‘news’ and its new found status as a commodity. This was proved in Vice President Spiro Agnew’s speech in 1969 where he condemned television networks for their “endless pursuit of controversy”. He intended to imply that the protests and demonstrations were staged and that TV networks needed to be more responsive and responsible to the people they served (Bliss, 1991). Journalism as a public service was now simply seen an act of civic engagement (Stavitsky and Dvorkin, 2008).
If history tells us anything it is that journalism’s romance with objectivity was short-lived. It has been exploited for political purposes, commodified for commercial gain and even suspended in times of great controversy like the Watergate and Vietnam War. Kovach and Rosentiel co writers of the Elements of Journalism argue that perhaps the concept of objectivity has been so mangled [by history] it now is usually used to describe the very problems it was conceived to correct (Kovach and Rosenstiel, 2001). With a tumultuous history, what makes this concept and practice something that journalists still feel the need to strive for? Michael Schudson, Media historian argues in his book Discovering The News that perhaps journalism clings to objectivity just as the faithful cling to religion – guidance in an uncertain world. He goes to note that journalists believe in objectivity because they want to, need to and forced to by ordinary human aspiration in order to escape from their own deep convictions of doubt and drift (Schudson, 1978). If this so, one also questions the equation of objectivity. Is the media the only variable in determining it?

Bibliography

Lippmann, W. (1995) Liberty and the news. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Schudson, M. (1978) Discovering the News. New York: Basic Books.

Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel (2001), The Elements of Journalism: What News people Should Know and the Public Should Expect, New York: Crown Publishers, p. 12.

Bliss, E. (1991) Now the news: the story of broadcast journalism. New York: Columbia University Press.

Alterman, E. (2008) ‘Out of Print’, The New Yorker (March)

Cunningham, B. (2008) Re-thinking Objectivity. Available at: http://www.cjr.org/feature/rethinking_objectivity.php?page=all (Accessed: 10 September 2015).

Jones, A. (2009) An Argument Why Journalists Should Not Abandon Objectivity. Available at: http://niemanreports.org/articles/an-argument-why-journalists-should-not-abandon-objectivity/ (Accessed: 17 September 2015).

Taflinger, R. F. (1996) The Myth of Objectivity in Journalism. Available at: http://public.wsu.edu/~taflinge/mythobj.html (Accessed: 17 September 2015).

Dean, Walter (2013) The lost meaning of ‘objectivity’. Available at: http://www.americanpressinstitute.org/journalism-essentials/bias-objectivity/lost-meaning-objectivity/ (Accessed: 10 September 2015).

Stavitsky, A. G. and Dvorkin, J. (2008) Objectivity and Balance: Conceptual and Practical History in American Journalism. Available at:
http://www.cpb.org/aboutcpb/goals/objectivity/whitepapers/cpb_ConceptualHistory_DvorkinStavitsky.pdf (Accessed: 10 September 2015).

The elements of journalism (2013) Available at: http://www.americanpressinstitute.org/journalism-essentials/what-is-journalism/elements-journalism/ (Accessed: 17 September 2015).