Professional Journalism is Characterized by Objectivity - Research Paper Example

Objectivity in Professional Journalism Introduction From time immemorial, information has always been one of the most significant tools that drives the human life and sustains an effective functioning of various systems within the society. All over, people need to receive and disseminate information regarding to the diverse sectors that touch their lives. The significance of journalism and mass media in this regard is incredible. The media has always existed to inform the public about what is happening around them in a professionally conducted manner. The first key pillar that signifies and manifests professionalism is ethics. Just like any other field, journalism and mass media are guided by professional ethical code of conducts that provides a framework through which operations are conducted (Gant, 2007:99). This is done in order to safeguard the consumers of mass media services from unhealthy practices as well as exploitation. The pledge to remain objective and impartial in reporting and broadcasting news is an essential condition that marks professional journalism. This condition has myriad significances not only to the consumers (audience) but also to the journalists as well as the general public. This paper argues that observing objectivity should be an uncompromised condition that every journalist needs to keep. Definition of Journalistic Objectivity To best address the issues around this topic, it is proper to insightfully understand what this concept (objectivity) is and its relation to journalism. According to Boudana (2011:386), objectivity is defined as the quality of being impartial in actions. It is the nonexistence of biases and lack of any shreds of prejudice. It is a state in which something or someone is free from any influence that may impact on them differently in a way that is not true. Objectivity, therefore, call for a neutral and independent ground in which thoughts and behaviors are constructed and exhibited in a just and uninfluenced form. In journalism, objectivity is the act of impartially gathering and disseminating media information in a way that is free from any influence from an external party or own biased thoughts. As opposed to subjective journalism in which an individual’s gathering and reporting of news is determined by the preconceived thoughts and/or other external influences, objectivity involves honesty and non-modification in information handling. Objective journalism is characterized by equality/fairness, neutrality and nonalignment in news gathering and reporting. In this practice, journalist are not expected to take position in the issues that they report. It is an obligation to recount facts as they are no personal opinion or attitude should influence the information availed to the audience (Boudana, 2011: 387). Brief History of Journalistic Objectivity The history of journalistic objectivity can be traced back to 1890 although it practical application came later in the twentieth century. Michael Schudson is saliently among the figures who contributed extensively to the use of objectivity in journalism. Schudson, a historian in the sub-field of communication relates the emergence of objectivity with the numerous social and economic changes and political upheavals that happened in Europe and America in the ancient times (Schudson, 2001: 150). The need to have journalists and reporters neutrally disseminate information necessitated a shift in journalism practice in the wake of the 20th century. American journalism institutions led in these transformations and by 1930s, a lot of alterations had started occurring (Curran, 2002: 134-138). Then World War I was a major turning point in journalistic objectivity. Having noticed how facts and values differed and how perception distinctly varies from the truth, journalists changed their thoughts and philosophies on how best news can be reported. It was realized that facts are only those points that are authenticated by humans as they are and do not necessarily represent the exact nature of the world’s reality. For instance, it might be argued by a government that they have killed several enemies attacking the nation. Such a statement can be reported by journalists as a fact when it is not the reality on the ground. The need to go deep into extracting the real state of events and presenting to the audience became an obligation Consequently, economic reasons are historically, are some of the factors that led to the emergence of objectivity. Commercial media houses realized that corporations that required their products and services advertised could hardly seek the services of media stations that were biased in their broadcasts. In response, many journalists got compelled to conduct objectively themselves so as to capture a larger audience. The press had to change how they present their stories so as to improve their sales and revenues from advertisements. Debates about Journalistic Objectivity In a long time, numerous debates on whether it is really possible to achieve objectivity in journalism. Questions have been raised concerning the role of opinion journalists. Should they also face the facts or just relay their messages regardless of the existing truth? One thing for sure is that truth exists regardless of what is reported. According to Soffer (2009: 476), just like any other virtue, objectivity is an important principle that has become a weakness to many people including journalists. Every journalist, therefore, must see the truth as it is without modifying it. Opinions should only be based on factual evidences. The main argument here, however, revolves around the criteria for determining what objectivity in journalism is since humans are not machines which use preset standards to define what is true and what is not. Humans rely on thoughts, perceptions and judgments to come to a decision about certain things. The question of what sets the objective standards is what challenges people’s understanding of this concept. Peters (2011: 301) argues that although there are facts in the world, the reality constructed by different people may be varied. Regardless of what the five senses can detect, there is more to the metal process sing than just mere sensation. Perception is a very significant process in the cycle and the influence it has on the final products of the received information is farfetched. The way the mind sieves information based on is influenced by factors such as education, experience, culture, religion among others. All these factors cannot miss in a person and they cause the biasness and prejudices that are seen in journalism and other professional fields. Apparently there is no precise standard for measuring what is objective and what is not. It is decided by the degree to which it aligns to the uncompromised facts detected from the environment. Objectivity especially in journalism, therefore, depends on various factors and the best that can be done is not to achieve perfect objectivity but to come close to reality and facts as much as possible (Preston, 2008: 121). Opponents of journalistic objectivity argue that objectivity in itself is a hindrance to the truth-seeking efforts. It is practically impossible to be absolutely objective especially in some journalistic practices. Print journalism is one of the areas where objectivity might not be practiced. For instance, deciding which news or story is to feature on the front pages of a newspaper or journal might be a daunting task that is flawed with subjectivity. The editors have to take a stance on what they perceive as catchy and important from their personal view. Of course this is an act of subjectivity but it is practically inevitable. In photojournalism, subjectivity is just impossible to avoid. A photographer/cameraperson has to choose what to capture and what not to depending on their own interpretation about the situation and probably the audience these will be broadcasted to. In their propaganda model, Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman fault the objectivity in media as one of the tools used by agencies and state institutions to exercise unnecessary whoopla while covering their evil deeds. This is made possible because the reporters are muted and cannot express their interpretations about the demanding situations. Objectivity is arguably a tool that renders journalist passive reporters rather than active analysts (Schudson, 2001: 151) Those opposed to this concept have forwarded various recommendations that can be used to replace journalistic objectivity. The principle of fairness and accuracy should be adopted rather than objectivity. By this, it implies that a journalist should be able to take a certain stance on an issue as long as they gather and report the story accurately and fairly without fear or favor. What they make out of the news or information, therefor, should be guided by their factual investigations and analysis. This perspective argues that it should be a concern that absolute objectivity is not practically achievable and the solution to it is allowing the journalists to take standpoint on an issue once they have presented both sides of the story. According to Hardt (1996: 26), a journalist’s understanding of the possible biases and prejudices puts them in a position to report accurate information. Reporters can be more reliable when they analyze news after presentation as it gives a deeper and expansive insight into the issue in question (Esser, Reinemann, and Fan, 2000: 211-213) Discussion The debates about whether objectivity is a worthy concept that is worth transmitted into the future continue to stream. With the many changes that are happening in journalism, the importance of objectivity is still questionable. As a matter of fact, the purpose that objectivity serves in journalism is to set facts right through unbiased collection and fair reporting without any impartiality. Facts should be reported as facts no matter how much they hurt the interest of the reporter. Objectivity seeks to differentiate clearly one’s opinion (which is probably influenced by a range of factors) from the ground reality that exists. This can only be achieved if the presspersons have the right professional editing, sensitivity to ethical codes and reporting expertise. As Lewis, Williams and Franklin (2008: 17) highlight, unbiased journalism is the best gift that the society can have in this era of modernization where influential people (including top government officials) work tirelessly to protect their malevolent deeds. Investigative media reports can guarantee the truth concerning such critical matters. It is the only hope that the society has that can unfold the truth about issues affecting the society. The argument by critics that perfect objectivity is impossible to attain is the truth. It is realistically subjective move to decide which issue to write about and which one to ignore. Pointing the camera towards one figure and ignoring the other is practically a partisan. The New York Times, Daily Mail or any other newspaper known do not write and publish all the stories they collect daily. Similarly, there are some that are placed on the headlines while others inside or at the back of the newspaper. This is subjective because a person would argue (based on their own perception) that the ‘other’ stories should have been on the front page. This renders the action inherently subjective. However, this argument about perfection cannot be used rationally to falsify and disrepute objectivity. Essentially, perfection might be frustrating to achieve but something close to it is far better than nothing. Not everything can really be perfect, not even the court decisions and verdicts. As long there is a high consistency and reliability then it is good. The new wave of technology and modern enlightenment allows for efficiency in objectivity practice as emerging issues such as crowdsourcing and social networking makes it virtually possible to credibly report in an impartial manner which can be verified. Journalists no longer monopolize information as it could have been in the past (van Dalen, de Vreese, and Albaek, 2011: 909). It is very easy to present unmodified information that is not influenced by one’s personal opinions and attitudes. The emerging trend in which media houses create online forums in social networks that allow free social interaction by the online community provides for more transparency and objectivity. Crowdsourcing of information is enabled and this is an essential move in ensuring there is no biasness in reporting. An example is in a case where a media house sends its team to the field to collect information and report about an issue like war. Through crowdsourcing, it has been made easy to find other information on social networks that can be utilized to verify the consistency of the journalists’ report. This way, objectivity is achieved so easily (Deuze, 2005: 445). According to Gant (2007: 116), a newscaster is like a broker when it pertains to news. They should be the bridge between the reality of the world and the audience. The audience has so much trust and expectations on the news reporter and giving factual, uninfluenced and unmodified news is a social responsibility that the journalist must take. Journalism should be a career that involves broadcasting stories that can make one’s friends angry and not just spreading lies and untrue/modified information in the name of making money. One’s opinion and preferences are not needed when informing the public about issues, not unless it’s a comedy show. Journalistic objectivity calls for ‘betraying one’s sources’ by extracting a little deeper and finding what is real. The public need the truth and factual information may not easily achieved in some instances if the same source agencies are relied on. In cases where a journalist is sourced with some information and they go on and publish it in a newspaper, the source may feel played but the public shall have benefited having been informed about the real nature and details of the issue. Just like scientific researchers, journalism should be based on the same approaches that are procedural and fact-based. Researches in science are generated from hypothesis that could have been formed from one’s own opinions, experience, upbringing, education among others. The same way, a journalist having some sort biasness that could make them structure a hypothesis is not wrong. Reporters may expect certain things to happen but are not sure about what exactly will occur just like a research scientist. They then go ahead and conduct a research to prove or disapprove what they earlier on thought. The report presented after the investigation should not be biased rather it should be based solely on the evidenced collected from the field. This is the rationale that journalistic objectivity works upon. It should be noted that the main goal of journalistic objectivity is to determine and expose practical truth and not a nonconcrete flawless fact. Genuine objectivity is involves carrying out investigation in good faith and coming up with reports that are not modified to meet deliberately certain personal needs. Those opposed to objectivity claiming that it cannot be perfect is like failing to board a cab because the driver did not score one hundred percent in their exams. Perfection is not the ultimate aim. The goal should be to extract as such evidence as possible because from the numerous sources and most importantly, present them as they are without changing them to meet an unrelated demand (Quinn, 2004: 116). As Davies (2009: 332) explains, the public who pay audience to news written in print media largely relies on what they see in scripts. It takes a lot of trust and faith to believe the correspondents written work. It is proper that the stories be presented to the readers as they are for them to make judgments out of them. The news provided should be verifiable and confirmable. The opinionated news might not, to a larger extent, represent the actual state of events. Summarizing of reports is one of the elements that is prone to be opinionated. Since most readers might want to just peruse over the stories very fast, news editors in most cases resort to briefing the information they have. However, this can breed numerous errors and inconsistencies if the editors are not objective. For instance, a story touching on political matters may be summarized in a way that demonstrates unfairness to one political divide in favor of another. Ultimately, the reader may miss the point in the story and get wrong information. Objectivity, therefore, serves a great role in this regard. A journalist is like a judge whose breaks away from stereotypes and prejudices (of which they are part of) and serve the society in a more modest way. It is true that journalist live in a society where there are stereotypes and biases. However, they must suppress these challenges and neutrally view the cases they handle in order to meet expectation the society has on them. To be fair and impartial require a strong clampdown of forces that can make one think and act differently. The same way a judge controls their anger, personal experiences, biases among others to pass a ruling that is specifically based on the evidence and facts at hand. Similarly, reporters should deeply investigate and organize their reports without any favor. Limiting the influence of their ego puts them at high positions of viewing the facts as they are hence making broadcasting of accurate information that is symmetrical to the exact occurrence or position of an event be possible. Objectivity will limit or exterminate errors committed in journalism (Ursell, 2001: 179) Conclusion As seen, professional journalism is characterized by objectivity. It is the core of ethical practice in journalism and the benefits it has brought to the field are numerous. Journalistic objectivity is not a concept that started today. It has deep roots in history as it was first recognized long before the 20th century. Response to journalistic objectivity has been both positive and negative. Many critics fault objectivity in journalism for its failure to achieve practical perfection. However, the positive impacts it has in the overall society are far-reaching. The goal of objectivity in journalism is not to be perfect but to report what is collected from the sources as it is without any alterations. It is only through objective journalism that the truth about what is happening behind scenes can be known by the public. Impartiality and fairness should be the baseline of all journalistic operations if moral responsibility that behinds the profession is to be achieved. In conclusion, objectivity is the future of responsible, accountable and professional journalism. References Boudana, S. (2011) A definition of journalistic objectivity as a performance. Media, Culture & Society, 33(3), 385-398. doi:10.1177/0163443710394899 Curran, J. (2002) Media and the Making of British Society, c .1700-2000. Media History, 8(2), 135-154. doi:10.1080/1368880022000047137 Davies, N. (2009) Flat Earth news: an award-winning reporter exposes falsehood, distortion and propaganda in the global media. London, Vintage. Deuze, M. (2005) What is journalism?: Professional identity and ideology of journalists reconsidered. Journalism, 6(4), 442-464. doi:10.1177/1464884905056815 Esser, F., Reinemann, C., & Fan, D. (2000) Spin Doctoring in British and German Election Campaigns: How the Press is Being Confronted with a New Quality of Political PR. European Journal Of Communication, 15(2), 209-239. doi:10.1177/0267323100015002003 Gant, S. (2007) Were all journalists now. New York, Free Press. Hardt, H. (1996) The End of Journalism Media and Newswork in the United States. Javnost - The Public, 3(3), 21-41. doi:10.1080/13183222.1996.11008630 Lewis, J., Williams, A., & Franklin, B. (2008) A COMPROMISED FOURTH ESTATE?. Journalism Studies, 9(1), 1-20. doi:10.1080/14616700701767974 Peters, C. (2011) Emotion aside or emotional side? Crafting an experience of involvement in the news. Journalism, 12(3), 297-316. doi:10.1177/1464884910388224 Preston, P. (2008) Making the news: Journalism and News Cultures in Europe. London, Routledge. Quinn, S. (2004) An Intersection of Ideals: Journalism, Profits, Technology and Convergence. Convergence: The International Journal Of Research Into New Media Technologies, 10(4), 109-123. doi:10.1177/135485650401000409 Schudson, M. (2001). The objectivity norm in American journalism. Journalism, 2(2), 149-170. doi:10.1177/146488490100200201 Soffer, O. (2009). The competing ideals of objectivity and dialogue in American journalism. Journalism, 10(4), 473-491. doi:10.1177/1464884909104950 Ursell, G. (2001). Dumbing down or shaping up?: New technologies, new media, new journalism. Journalism, 2(2), 175-196. doi:10.1177/146488490100200204 van Dalen, A., de Vreese, C., & Albaek, E. (2011). Different roles, different content? A four-country comparison of the role conceptions and reporting style of political journalists. Journalism, 13(7), 903-922. doi:10.1177/1464884911431538 Read More