Thomas A. Shakely

Walk into almost any news room or journalism class in the country and, if polled, probably a majority will say something about the importance of objectivity in reporting.

It’s not that they think they, as journalists, won’t have biases, but that they believe they will be sufficiently impartial in their reading of events, placement of data, and interviews with sources as to provide an “objective” picture of reality.

But what if the notion of objectivity in journalism were its great weakness?

“Objectivity” presupposes an objective, impartial observer. And a reporter’s mission is to obtain information and synthesize disparate raw materials into a sensible narrative. As a reporter learns more about a subject, cognitive biases will take hold on what information is deemed important or relevant.

Penn State’s Daily Collegian editor, Elizabeth Murphy, wrote on her paper’s recent run-in with the law. In her blog post explaining why she received a court order to remove articles from her paper’s web site, and why they refused to agree, she provided a glimpse into the Objectivity mindset of journalists:

The Daily Collegian will not yield to intimidation.
The Daily Collegian does not answer to the government.
The Daily Collegian reports the truth as it happens, day in and day out.

But what happens when her newspaper reports information that turns out not to be the truth? Or only a partial picture of the truth?

A better standard to adhere to as a journalist would be to acknowledge the mind’s tendency toward bias and proclaim that journalists should be naturally skeptical — rather than claiming the mantle of objectivity and Truth.

Skepticism is a useful tool, for its demand is to question and probe into greater depth in all things. The self-proclaimed objective observer, by comparison, seems more likely to fall prey to blind spots and hubris — the kind that breeds self-congratulatory assertions that one “reports the truth as it happens”.

The idea of objectivity ignores the possibility that central parts of the “truth” were perhaps omitted, maybe due to careless research, lazy interviewing, or simple lack of column inches or word count ceilings.

In doing so, the reporter might be doing greater harm than good, working against the public interest by drumming up trust and faith in a system that isn’t itself objectively Truthful, objectively Right, or even objectivity Relevant.

Jesse Walker at Reason Magazine explained a reason for the myth of objectivity in 2003:

There’s a reason that Fox News, whose very selling point is its reliable slant, would adopt a slogan like “We report, you decide.” And there’s a reason why Ann Coulter and Eric Alterman, scarcely objective writers themselves, would attack the media not merely for being wrong but for being biased. The rhetoric of “objectivity” is far too useful a tool, for denouncing your enemies or for patting yourself on the back, to expect everyone to give it up.

Jack Shafer at Slate took on the notion of the “objective” war correspondent that same year.

Here’s a noteworthy story from Harvard’s Neiman Journalism Lab: MinnPost is a nonprofit news project birthed in 2007 from the tumult of Minnesota’s crumbling traditional newspaper infrastructure.

They’ve received funding from Knight Foundation and from subscribers, but are now branching out via news micro-funder Spot.Us in an attempt to raise a whopping $40,000 to fund Minnesota gubernatorial coverage. This is a big deal for a few reasons.

First, MinnPost is asking for a lot more than most Spot.Us story pitches. A casual look at other pitches shows budgets of a few hundred dollars or a goal in the low thousands. Second, MinnPost is trying to expand their coverage through an ongoing series (reporting on state politics) rather than a specific story of perhaps niche interest. Perhaps most intriguing of all, however, is that if this budget is fully funded within the next five months (the time frame for Spot.Us to donate), it could help answer the question of whether news reporting will be more often decided by readers, publishers, or the market.

There are those who make the argument that certain types of reporting, and certain news features, exist or disappear based simply on whether there is public demand for that information. But is there necessarily “market demand” for investigative reporting or a watchdog for the governor? When news budgets are squeezed, and departments need to be cut, you can bet that investigative reporters will be cut before those on the sports beat.

The success or failure of MinnPost’s Spot.Us campaign may end up saying a lot about a city’s real desire to keep politicians’ feet to the fire in the next age of journalism.

***

Also: An anecdotal refutation of the boogeyman that the demise of print will mean the demise of quality content.

Update: Katherine Mangu-Ward of Reason Magazine compares Spot.Us and Kiva, the international micro-lending website, taking the opportunity to chastise a recent (atrocious) FTC proposal that would result in government-funded reporting. Also, a parting shot at the decline of print newspapers from The Onion.