Objectivity - A Faded Virtue?

Objectivity, once a virtue for journalists, is today difficult to find. For nearly a half of the 20th century objectivity became a measure of a good journalism and dominated America. (Mindich as cited in Cohen-Almagor, 2008) We naturally expect journalists and reporters to utilize and promote objectivity as essential elements in reporting. What we receive is by far not what we wish for, but not everyone is able to recognize a bias. I have provided you with examples of deception in covering real events and I have provided you with sources to help you recognize bias coverage in everyday life.

Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary describes objectivity as “relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence”. Thus, to attain objectivity journalists should avoid involving their opinion, any ideologies or personal visions. They should provide hard facts. As facts we assume statements deprived from emotions, subjectivity and judgment.

Four Principles of Objectivity

Cohen-Almagor (2008) developed four principles that are essential for maintaining objectivity; accuracy, truthfulness, fairness and balance, and moral neutrality. Though, what he does not state is that as far as these principles can facilitate objectivity, they can as well serve for creating bias.

Accuracy and fairness are traditionally promoted, while moral neutrality is balancing among ignorance and ethics. Accuracy often stumbles over editorials, exaggeration, and limitation of knowledge or inadequate research, and thus creates distorting news with main focus on the ratings than on the content of a story.

Truthfulness is threatened especially by compulsive deadlines set up by editors, who are eager to publish the sooner the better. (Cohen-Almagor, 2008) “Yes-man” politics became everyday routine. Major downsizing resulting from corporate ownership in the eighties reduced the number or journalists while the number of news increased. Thus, more pressure was imposed upon journalist to keep their jobs and satisfy the editors, who then had to satisfy the chiefs and corporate owners such as Rupert Murdoch.

In contrast with truthfulness and accuracy, balance is more problematic and prone to bias. Looking at the press in Great Britain the newspapers exhibit no bias undercover. It is traditionally set and recognized which paper favors whom. Take the liberal-left The Guardian and conservative Daily Mail, as an example. Their readers are conscious of its content, they know what to expect. Supposedly unbiased and balanced news networks such as the Fox News, which claims to provide “Fair and Balanced” cover of events, is creating a bias, rather than an objective image.

As for moral neutrality, the BBC still remains the world’s most trusted news organization. (Cohen-Almagor, 2008) After the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in September 2001, American mainstream media became so politicized that Americans looked for BBC coverage of the follow-up events, because they felt, their domestic media conveys bias.

Media like to be seen objective; however by using certain vocabulary they more likely became biased. The use of military language in Joanne Mariner’s article is one of the examples of how language can mislead and pose a silent approval.

Is using presumably neutral words appropriate? Maintaining moral neutrality at every cost deprive the reports from critical stance. And as a result common reader or viewer can assume that there is a difference between “torture” and “enhanced interrogation techniques. If the general idea of the media is to serve as a watch-dog of democracy, then adopting euphemistic labels government officials endorse leads to confusion if not to deception. (Greenblatt, 2004) This failure of media to provide fair information to the public might have catastrophic consequences for freedom of speech and core democratic principles as we know them today. How can we oppose our governments’ initiatives if we are unsuccessful in attaining the ‘right’ information?

"The Fox's Effect"
To outfox Fox? Is is possible? What are the consequences? Imitation! Are you still wondering about the future of freedom of speech and fair reporting? Watch this video and its testimonials.

Jeff Cohen: “The corporate ownership of the other channels did not allowed anyone to counterprogram against Fox…”
Diana Winthrop: “It is expensive to spend time exploring the issues… and everything now is a question of money.”
Larry Irving: “…in order to save money and in order to get economies of scale and scope, a lot of the broadcasters are shrinking the employee pool and they’re shrinking it in the news sectors of their stations…”
Bob McChesney: “When you let a small number of companies have this much concentrated power, they will always abuse it…”

Sources:

Cohen-Almagor, Raphael. "The Limits of Objective Reporting." Journal of Language and Politics 7:1 (2008): 138-57.

Greenblatt, Allan. "Media Bias." CQ Researcher 14.36 (2004): 853-76. Proquest.

Mariner, Joanne. "Tortured Language." Find Law. 06 Oct. 2009

"Objective." Def. 1. Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 10 May. 2010
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objectivity

Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVa7gK8eFMk

Pictures:
http://www.delta.tudelft.nl/uploads/images/opinie.jpg
http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/assets/Image/Nieman%20Reports/Images%20by%20Issue/winter2004/29four313.jpg