The Era of Media Objectivity Is Over. Deal With It.

The ongoing debate about journalism, bias and objectivity erupted recently with the Washington Post's release of new rules for social media. The rules themselves were mostly commonsensical, but the way they were written and promulgated suggested that Washington Post journalists employ social media such as Twitter and Facebook at their own peril - exactly the wrong message to be sending. If I were employed by the Post, how could I possibly be reassured by the prospect of "many, many discussions" with top editors about what I could and couldn't say?

"Neutrality" of the kind sought by traditional media outlets such as the Post is supposed to emulate the scientific method - a cool elucidation of facts from a messy reality.

Here's how the "neutral" stance theoretically works: There's a political process between competing interests in society; journalists play an important role in that by explaining what's happening, exposing wrongdoing, hypocrisy, etc. So far so good. The foundation of this approach is the civics-book idea that on some level, we'll remember that we're all in this crazy democratic experiment together, we share the same values, and thus will look for honest brokers - journalists - to help us understand what's happening.

But it's been clear for a while that this goal is illusory. The era of the media-as-honest broker is over. The Washington Post and other establishment outlets just haven't realized it yet.

To be an honest broker, people must view you as trustworthy. But the traditional media long ago lost the trust of large swaths of the public. Why? Well, that's a whole Ph.D. thesis. But look at some of the events of the past 40 years - Watergate, Vietnam, 9/11, Katrina. Political institutions lost public trust. The media were and are part of the political ecosystem and played a role in that loss. They enabled massive screwups and trafficked in cynicism (see the runup to the Iraq war and all political coverage from 1988 on). Moreover, Tom Edsall argues in CJR that the increasingly educated and liberal demographics of media employees skewed coverage away from, and at times against, the concerns of conservative, working class Americans. And Steve Buttry writes about how the elevation of neutrality came at the expense of other important journalistic values.

Unlike the political system, which kicks people and parties out of office from time to time, the media didn't self-correct. It doubled down on neutrality - not just as a journalism methodology but as a cocoon: we stand outside and above what's going on, and thus don't have to seriously examine our role in it.

Without trust, an honest broker is just a broker, with no privileged claim on the truth.

But this is actually a good thing. It means you have to compete in a vast, ever-growing marketplace with a lot of other "truths" - some of them lies. Contending in that marketplace is one of the basic functions of journalism. If media outlets insist on trying to be neutral arbiters between political interests - without examining who and what those interests represent or if their arguments are credible - they'll continue to inch toward irrelevance.

But what does a post-neutral world look like? Edsall's solution - "We're liberal - but objective!" - doesn't sound promising. Nor do I buy the "slippery slope" argument: that all journalists end up wearing their opinions on their sleeves, that their work devolves into advocacy, that we all end up screaming at each other (that is, more than we do already).

There is room for all kinds of journalism. Talking Points Memo seems to do well enough combining smart reporting with a liberal perspective, as does the HuffPost. That said, I don't think the Washington Post or New York Times should become TPM - or, to cite a more apt example, The Guardian. Such an abrupt change would be jarring and out of character.

Rather, it would help simply to back off and see what happens. You know, evolve. Stop loudly proclaiming and enforcing neutrality and let the work speak for itself. Allow more, not less, flexibility in how journalists can express themselves. As a journalist, I don't think my opinions about political issues are particularly interesting - unless I have knowledge or have done research about a topic and actually have something material to say about it. In that case, being able to comment on it and engage the public makes for better journalism. And good journalism that asks and answers important questions should be able to withstand partisan or ideological criticism.

 

 

Follow John McQuaid on Twitter: www.twitter.com/johnmcquaid

Comments

[balancedsolution]

When was the media ever really objective? Now it's just Opinion rather than facts.

Facts take work.

Opinions are simple.

Cut through the News (Noise) and think for yourself.

[maxgen]

I doubt that the media was ever objective, although a few outlets might have been.

With few exceptions, it is owned by people who are good capitalists who want to promulgate their own political / social / religious agenda and maximize their profits, by maximizing sales (circulation) and advertising revenue. It perpetually has proclaimed its own objectivity and that of the media which agree with its agenda, which leads to people actually believing their propaganda. It has gotten us into wars, promoted bigotry and slavery and genocide and dictators, and fought the working and poor classes.

If you are a boss, it is easy to get what you want out of your media employees; reassign them to the sports page, order them to report your material, emphasize your agenda, write on your topic, bury their opinions on Page 99, or ultimately fire them. No matter if they are liberal or conservative. They have to eat and want to follow their trade.

I only trust news from books, the alternative press and the internet; and interpret it as I go along.

[kimk3]

The msm could start by doing some fact-checking and not just repeating the press releases of "both sides."

[MajorKong]

The other half of the equation is that we don't have news any more. We have infotainment.

[Decorina]

I completely agree with you. When the news departments were made part of the entertainment departments real news reporting disappeared.

[AnnfromCA]

I agree with you, but I do know it's been shocking over the past year or so. The spin is outrageous. It's been completely disheartening to see that the news stories are far more public relations style pieces than even the editorials.

It takes time to grieve and move on. But, yes, acceptance is the key. :)

[jhamm1]

You're wrong. The "era of media objectivity" is not "over". It never existed.

[den1953]

The only reporting the New York Post want to report is Ruppert Murdocks right wing views and how he wants President Obama to fail and leave office he only wants profit he don't care about America or it's people. I don't see him doing any thing for America except giving his talking turds on Fox the go ahead for promoting hate and bigotry!

[TheobaldLocke]

Yes, lets open up the media to more outlets like Faux News!

Because that won't create an even more hateful political situation than we already have...

[east coast elitist]

There has never been objectivity in journalism. There has only been an era of aspiration towards it, or perhaps a period of self-delusion or collective denial about having achieved it. Look at the history of media and you will see cycles of more or less overt opinion and agenda.

[iblogleft]

I thought a journalists job was to report what actually occurred in reality, to those that could not be witness to those actual events. Maybe I'm crazy.

[AnnfromCA]

It used to be the pride and purpose. That disappeared. Today, on-the-spot reports are agenda-driven to the max.

[DragonMama]

You are confusing mere reporters with true journalists. A reporter shows up on the scene and reports what they see and what they're told. A journalist is a professional trained to get to the who, what, where, why, and how of the situation. We have very few journalists left, just a bunch of reporters and pundits playing at journalism.

[Carl Caroli]

Allow more, not less, flexibility in how journalists can express themselves. As a journalist, I don't think my opinions about political issues are particularly interesting - unless I have knowledge or have done research about a topic and actually have something material to say about it.

Two problems here - first is that many opinions are being presented as facts, and second,a journalist or editor may have an agenda, so their reporting, as is commonly being done today, is cherry picking of facts to suite their taste.

[PerfumeisToxic]

The whole idea of "unbiased neutral" opinion is dangerous. No one has an opinion that that is not influenced by their own interests. And the presentation of facts is always subjective, as only a portion of all the facts can ever be presented, and bias influences what those presented facts will be.

When news is represented as neutral when it as actually biased people are duped and led astray.

I say let people know the vested interested and biases of those who are presenting the news, and then they can freely make up their own minds with this knowledge of bias in mind. The worst thing is to believe something is neutral when it is not, and hence to believe everything that is presented.

[tehixe]

How about this? Buckle down and WORK. Don't just suckle on the teat of official statements, don't just regurgitate what both sides tell you. Tell us where the facts lie. Neutrality has too often meant bending over backwards to make both sides sound credible, even when they're not. So-called neutrality has been largely responsible for the ascendance of the Republican party, who managed to lie their way into office without serious scrutiny by the so-called liberal media.

How about this, media folks: the right wing is going to dump on you and call you biased no matter how much you fawn over their shenanigans and represent them as a sane, reasonable, alternative. So why not say to hell with them, leave them their Faux Noise, and tell the truth for once in your miserable lives.

[MC71]

Well said. Journalists should not abandon an unbiased approach to reporting, they (we, as I am one) need to find the way back to it. Indeed, 1988 is a good place to find when political beat writers became stenographers instead of reporters. It is so much easier to report WHAT was said and the response instead of the VERACITY of what was said. And today's occasional "truth squad" sidebars aren;t enough. It needs to happen as a matter of course, in all reporting. Original post pointed out that the increasingly educated journalists have moved away from appealing to the middle America conservatives. That's what education can do. Educated journalists telling the truth is what the country needs, not pandering to the right.

[Johnagain]

I think you've nailed this one. The operative word is 'work'. Those who would be journalists have gotten incredibly lazy and seem scared of their own shadows. This is nowhere more evident than in reporting of events outside the US. 10 minutes of listening to the BBC World Service reveals American foreign reporting to be the joke that it is.

[Nooneyouknow]

If you want a true perspective on mainstream American media since World War Two, google "the Mighty Wurlitzer." Objectivity has been defined by non-journalists for a long, long time.

[tmaxPA]

Media Objectivity has always been a big fat lie. What we need is not objectivity, but honesty, and diversity.