Is objective journalism dead?
The last few days, I've been thinking a lot about the ways that NCPR and our journalism are perceived.
I had a particularly ugly conversation with someone in the environmental community.
We also took a lot of flack from anti-Park Agency folks, convinced that we're carrying water for the state.
A widely-shared view seems to be that there's little faith -- and maybe little interest -- in a news organization that tries to be objective.
For some, the fact that we have 'public radio' in our name is a badge of shame, a clear sign of a lefty-liberal agenda.
Others are frustrated that we're not playing an advocacy role.
And some just plain aren't buying it: They believe that the whole concept of independence and balance are smokescreens for a hidden agenda.
My own views on this are (not surprisingly) pretty different. I'm an old school news guy. (I started working as a reporter in 1984...)
I work hard to make sure that my loyalty is to the story, to the facts, to fairness, not to the agendas of the people in my stories.
(I could go on about this, but I'll say simply that I love it when my initial ideas about an issue turn out to be wrong. I love surprises and complexity. That's why I'm a journalist, really.)
But a growing number of critics -- including some of the best media critics in the country -- say objectivity just isn't possible.
Bias is human, they say. We all have agendas, favorites, prejudices.
This particular debate comes at a time when the North Country has a thriving and multifaceted journalism culture.
New blogs, magazines, TV, newspapers, AM radio, a medley of different public radio stations offer a rich discourse about our lives and arguments.
So what do you think? Do you prefer your news sources to come with a particular and openly-stated agenda?
Or do you think "objective" is still a valid ideal, something you want in the mix?
posted by Brian Mann @ 2/09/2010 09:06:00 AM
30 Comments
30 Comments:
Brian:
I think it is credit to you and to NCPR that you wonder about and care about these issues. So thank you for that. I think it is true that as humans, were are biased by our backgrounds and experiences, among many things, and the best we can do is acknowledge that bias and try to see through it and around it.
Can we be truly objective? Can being “objective” be defined? I’m not sure, but it is most definitely something I’d like to see kept in the mix, as you say.
Objectivity should continue to be the ideal of honest reporting.
Yes, we all have our biases, points of view of which we may not be aware, and those biases will to some extent color what an editor considers newsworthy and which facts a reporter finds relevant.
That is why objectivity is an ideal, a goal pursued even if never fully realized.
A father had a young son who was chronically late for everything: getting out of bed, appearing for breakfast, getting dressed, etc. It drove his parents nuts. The kid loved to fish, and one morning did get up early to go fishing. As dawn was trying to break, and they were inhaling some breakfast,the father looked out the window and saw a bird pulling up a worm. He thought, Aha, a teaching moment.
He pointed the bird/worm out to his son and asked, What does that tell you? The kid replied, Don't be an early worm.
Facts are events plus interpretation.
I want a reporter to give us the facts as best he can and let me accept them or re-interpret them as I chose.
I enjoy the news coverage provided by NPR. It is as close to unbiased coverage as you going to get. I have no use for the "news" as provided by the likes of CBS, ABC or NBC. News from NPR on the radio and from PBS on the radio.
Brian, I think that you are an objective reporter. I think you see “bias” more likely affect WHAT you choose to cover as opposed to HOW a story is covered. It has a lot to do with perspective. Brian I think you have said yourself that you are a “greenie” (isn’t that what you called it?). Given that I am not surprised that you would want to cover stories like the one you did for NPR on the effects of a dam being built by Hydro-Quebec on the native Canadians in the area. It was a very good story. I am sure you had all the facts spot on. That story was clearly written to highlight the fact that the area was going to be sunk under tons of water and those people lives were about to change drastically. Am I imagining it, or from that story couldn’t I tell that you might have been biased in thinking that maybe this dam might be a bad idea? So you are not directly trying to persuade someone to oppose a project like that, but it really seems that could easily be an indirect effect. I was being persuaded. I didn’t want those wolves I could hear getting drowned. Does that mean that you have covered the story a certain way and the HOW as well as the WHAT was making it less than purely objective? I don’t really know. Tell us what you were thinking on that story. Did you feel a bias?
To have a passion for what one does is absolutely required- or don't bother.
To be passionate, at some point you must take one perspective over another.
When reporting it is imperitive to give all the facts- naked and to the bone, honestly and objectively.
After that i think it is acceptable to most if you flesh it out, displaying your position, your opinion. That is what gives each individual reporter his or her style.
Brian i think you're just fine, whether i agree with your position or not- you give the facts honestly, without which i would not be able to decide if i agree or not.
What is best about NPR is they expand the realm of the news, beyond the traditional network's topics.
NPR reports about many things you will never see on network news, and if it does make it to network news, NPR often beats them by weeks.
I remember as an example when the nuns were kidnapped in Central America (years ago). i heard it on NPR and waited to see how ABC, CBS, NBC, would handle it. Wanted to see pictures etc...
I waited for about a week!
I agree with PG, I also think that the reverse is true. That there are many stories from other media outlets that you will not hear on NPR or NCPR. Compare any two media outlets WebPages and that is clear. I think that is a good thing also. But here is a local example that I thought was strange. NCPR has been quite good in trying to cover Adirondack issues, the "Lows Lake" story was one good example. After the decision not to classify a portion of the lake as Wilderness there was an outcry from environmental groups. As we now know this led to a lawsuit being filed against the DEC and the APA. In what was clearly an effort to fend off the suit the DEC commissioner sent a letter to president of the Adirondack Mt. Club. In the letter he explained that despite the decision made by the APA and signed by the governor the DEC was going to “manage the lake as a Wilderness”. You can look at the letter for all the details. The facts were simple. A big controversial story was over. The culmination (a that point) was the APA decision. The DEC commissioner had just sent a letter to an environmental group telling them that despite the decision of the APA his agency would manage the land, not according to that decision, but according to the way that the environmental group was hoping things had turned out. Now this story to others and me seemed like huge deal. It seemed like a big enough deal for two groups to sue the DEC and the APA so I don’t think I am crazy thinking this is a big story (their interest was different than mine). NCPR (as best I could tell) chose not to cover this part of the story for some reason. Does that show bias? Again, I am not sure. They covered the rest of the story all along why not these simple facts. If you covered the facts regarding this story I apologize in advance. I couldn’t find anything. In fact if you did cover this feel free to delete my post. The facts of this story are very troubling if you are watching this from the outside. What prevents the DEC from managing any piece of land as THEY see fit regardless of state law. Even an environmental group should take pause. Some day the DEC may have a commissioner that thinks that some Wilderness land should be managed as an Intensive Use area. I am a little off point but I wanted to try and think of an example where bias could be expressed in a decision not to cover a story.
Paul -
You're right that our coverage of the Lows Lake lawsuit has been very thin (we used some AP copy).
That story came at a time when we were working on other things.
Sometimes our very small staff shapes coverage more than we like to admit.
Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your POV) the lawsuit will continue and this is a semi-perennial issue.
So we'll have a chance to wade back in and do some interesting coverage before the dust settles.
--Brian, NCPR
This question the ultimate problem of the post modern. Gone are the old days when we actually believed that we as a species could somehow fully comprehend the universe through the lens of religion or its close cousin, science.
Is anyone objective? I doubt it.
Like everyone on here before me, objectivity is the ideal, but making it a reality may be impossible by definition.
All we can hope for are many different angles and approaches.
As for me, I enjoy watching Fox News and then going to Al Jazeera online. They will cover the same event, but its almost hard to tell if they were at the same meeting.
I will say, NCPR does better than most in staying down the middle on any given topic.
In suggesting that "objectivity" may be beyond us in this post modern world, Jon says "Like everyone on here before me, objectivity is the ideal, but making it a reality may be impossible by definition. All we can hope for are many different angles and approaches."
It's true that many journalists don't use the word "objective" anymore, acknowledging our post modern world. But most journalists have not given up the hope of reporting without subjective influences. And contemporary codes of journalistic ethics -- even while avoiding the old-fashioned word -- do their best to set out the markers that define our best efforts. Here are a couple I'm most familiar with, and that NCPR hews to:
http://www.prndi.org/ethics.html
(from Public Radio news Directors, Inc. It's short and sweet -- more of a statement of ethics.)
And:
http://www.cpb.org/stations/reports/cpb_pubradio_ethicsGuideII.pdf
(from NPR, PRNDI, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Not so short.)
And sorry that I couldn't figure out how to put a hot link in the comment box.
Thanks Martha,
Good and interesting reading (I only read the short one).
I guess my question is, isn't just framing a story an act of bias?
Let's say reporter X covers a municipal board. Her given news outlet focuses on the taxpayer and how government spends their money.
So she walks out of the meeting with a story about spending on garbage cans or something like that.
Under deadline, she then neglects to write another topic that was discussed about some social issue that another news outlet who focuses on healthcare would have.
That's a paradigmatic agenda.
Isn't that an inherent bias, albeit a rather harmless one?
Those that think you are "unbiased" have the same bias as you.
Those that think NPR or NCPR are "unbiased" share their bias.
It is time for the audience to realize their bias and realize that when they hear words they agree with, they have found a like-biased source.
To answer the question, I think objective journalism is dead, because there is agreed upon standard anymore.
Left out a word...
To answer the question, I think objective journalism is dead, because there is NO agreed upon standard anymore.
(I wish you could edit or delete your own post)
I think it also true that the media has been used in very subjective ways in the past so that has effected people’s perception of it. Look at the media (propaganda) during World War II (going back to the civil war) as examples. It helped us win the war but it didn’t do us any favors as far as solidifying any trust of the media. Because of this past history and for other reasons people have a healthy distrust of all media outlets. Look at the one post above who says they only trusts NPR and NCPR. Others don’t trust NPR at all. I think that Jon and I have the same perspective. He articulates his point better than I do but the bottom line is that there appears to be some “bias” in selecting WHAT to cover. Martha, these rules you cite are what help govern HOW you cover a story I don’t think they say much as to what you decide to cover (Like Jon I only read the short one, I can’t spend too much time here!). As another example there is a Fox news story today on the Federal government’s purchase of 3000 acres of land on St. Croix in the US Virgin islands to be designated as a park. If NPR decided to cover this story I bet this would have a much different angle. You could be purely objective in covering this story, get all the facts right, and follow all the guidelines in the ethics manual and still get two very different stories. I think the same applies to local and state issues.
I think along the same lines as JDM. We have been so polarized that any information that does not agree with what we already believe is considered a biased source. You only need to look at the Federal Government to know that the days of working together are long gone. Any Republican that would vote for anything Obama proposes would be called a Rhino. Common ground is seen as a weakness. Statesmanship is absent, Politics is seen as nothing more than a high stakes football game. Winner take all.
The internet and hundreds of cable channels all vying for dollars are not driven by truth and fairness, but ratings and sponsors.
Say anything long enough and loud enough and it will be believed by many, and that lie becomes a truth and anybody that would counter that belief is considered biased and a liar.
It is not journalists that have become biased for the most part, it is the listener that has turned deaf to differences.
Wouldn't an agreed upon standard be necessary to BE biased.
In other words it's like what you said that when you hear things that you agree with, your sharing a bias. So if we agree where to start, we are already biased from the git-go then? so then it is all biased...?!
........aawwh heck i give up!!
Objective journalism is not dead, it was never alive. Bias is the human condition. Bias is the reason for the scientific method. Even our physical senses are biased. Magicians know this all to well as they use our bias to trick us. To have any chance of mitigating your bias you have to admit to yourself what they are.
One of the fallacies that seems to permeate our culture is that scientists are objective. So people put a lot of faith in what scientist say without question. Journalist could learn a lot from the history of science. Richard Feynman's famous "Cargo Cult Science" commencement address, given in 1974 at Caltech, makes a number of points that could be applied to journalism. Read the whole thing.
http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm
The late Dr. Thomas Gold's essay "New Ideas in Science" is also instructive. The herd mentality he talks about is evident in major dead tree media (NYT, Washington Post, LA Times) as well as the big 3 networks (ABC, CBS, NBC) amongst others.
http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/freenrg/newidea1.html
The faith in scientist is used to great effect by activist. Publish nonsense that looks like science and journalist, who for the most part have no background in science, eat it up. If it conforms to the journalist beliefs they will not question it at all.
One such paper that has been cited to support socialized medicine purported to show that a bit above 50% of all bankruptcy's in the US were due to medical bills. This paper was referenced as proof recently by some retired professors from SLU in a letter to North Country Now. There numerous deficiencies in the cited paper but it appeared to me a simple test would be to compare the per capita personal bankruptcy rate of the US with a country with socialized medicine and similar bankruptcy laws. Canada appears to fit the bill. One could hypothesize that Canada should have a personal bankruptcy rate half of the US. They don't. It is slightly lower (less than 10% lower if memory serves me right) but nowhere near 50% lower. Which bring me back to Dr. Feynman for my last point. It is a statement of integrity that applies to journalism as well.
"Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can--if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong--to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it."
In the NYT today an article "Skeptics Find Fault With U.N. Climate Panel" is a good example of yellow journalism. There are so many things wrong with the report I wouldn't know where to start. One good example of lie by omission in this article is:
"The panel was also criticized for citing a study about financial losses after extreme weather events that found an increase in such losses of 2 percent a year from 1970 to 2005. That study had not been peer reviewed at the time, although it was later on."
The paper was not peer reviewed although it was also used by the Stern Review. Dr. Pielke Jr. addresses this misuse in Global Environmental Change 17 (2007) 302–310 (peer reviewed)
"The source for the ‘‘new analysis’’ statement is a background paper prepared by Muir-Wood and colleagues as input to a workshop that Peter Hoppe and I organized in May, 2006 in Hohenkammer, Germany on disasters and climate change (Muir-Wood et al., 2006; Hoppe and Pielke, 2006). In their background paper Muir-Wood et al. do indeed report a 2% annual increase in losses since 1970 after adjusting for various societal factors. What the Stern Review does not report of Muir-Wood et al. is that they find no trend in losses over the longer period 1950–2005 and that Muir-Wood et al. acknowledge that the trend that they find is ‘‘dominated’’ by the 2004 and 2005 hurricane seasons in the US. In other words, the trend is not global but the result of hurricane losses in the US.
A wealth of information about the misinformation propagated by the IPCC and Stern Report, and now repeated by the NYT, can be found here:
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/02/im-not-aware-of-that.html
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/01/robert-muir-wood-on-stern-report.html
The climategate story has exploded in the British press while the US media has been mute. The pretense of objectivity I think makes things worse. The journalist who buys into this belief in objectivity blinds themselves to their own bias.
I think objective journalism is a myth. It always was, always will be. You can't help but look at something a certain way. The more involved you are, the more it colors your view.
So yes, in those cases where you see your bias, say so and be done with it. Strive to be fair, objective, but be aware you may fail.
Objectivity is dead in journalism. Never the less is objectivity should be the "gold" standard; the goal to achieved.
Two thoughts:
First, objectivity or lack of it is not the extent of the issue. Context is also important. In what context is the reporting that is being done? Is it balanced? This is a PRIME consideration. NPR, nationally is very biased. I for one am a strong proponent of striking it completely from the federal budget. In this age, with multiple media, electronic, print, etc. the notion that we need a government sponsored media outlet is archaic and severely irrelevant. If it is to exist, let it compete in the media market to do so. If NPR does not survive it will be the result of its own lack of competitiveness.
Secondly, the national media defined as major newspapers in large cities and the three national broadcast networks are notoriously biased. This circumstance is a severe threat to the operation of this particular democracy. The successful execution of the operational framework as outlined in our constitution relies on an informed electorate as so much power, and rightfully so, rests with the voting public. It is implied that this knowledge will be obtained from a media that is given full latitude, unrestrained; and again, rightfully so. But when individual journalists or news agencies apply their bias and their opinion in a story under the guise of an objective accounting of an event an action or a policy formation, that is despicable behavior and outright deception of the worst kind. For example 60 Minutes and Dan Rather's falsified memo about President Bush's service record. I am sorry but those involved should flogged! They have abused the public trust. It is manipulation at the most disgusting level.
Objectivity and balance needs to be restored but do not misunderstand....NO to the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE! Lets have journalists take individual responsibility for their own actions. When journalists apply their own views in results in skewed, inaccurate information to the voters who in turn base their vote on shoddy, purposely deceiving information. Over the long-term the result is unrepresentative individuals are elected, poor legislation is proposed and sometimes even enacted and the electorate becomes disillusioned and unhappy.
Case in point the current health care bill, related dissatisfaction in the electorate and welcome to Washington, Senator Brown!
To the commentor above , actually I think the attitude in Sen .Brown election was---screw all of the rest of you-I've got mine! AS to Brian's comment on objectivety ....Please don't you ever ever ever give in! You being a tad older, it is your responsebility to mentor the younger ones coming up even tho you may not even realize it. That's kinda how things work like it or not. It is upsetting to me that people would think that they have the right to influence you to their way of thinking and then have the audasity to be angry with you for not doing so, whatever the issue may be. I don't always agree with you but do not stop doing what you are doing. Margaret
Brian, Let’s talk about 2 specific stories. I think these may come close to being biased in some ways. Yesterday you had a radio piece where David Gibson was advocating for Peter Hornbeck’s addition to the APA board. Then you did a piece today where Betty Little was advocating against Peter. Sounds balanced so far. But look at the piece today in comparison to yesterday. How does today’s start? It starts with Gibson advocating for Peter! Then sure you have Betty Little articulating her point, but how do you follow that up? First with you asking her a question about how an “environmentalist” could never get on the list she describes (BTW why couldn’t the folks who compile the list not put on 5 environmentalists if they chose?). Then next you have Curt Stiles explaining why having a guy like Peter on the board is an okay idea. Explain to me how in a million years I could possibly see this story as having the balance you describe. This is unbalanced in my opinion and it is borderline advocating for Peter Hornbeck.
Paul, You just made my point perfectly- now that's a giggle! But I'm positive you are not giggling. Margaret
I enjoy everyone's comments but especially the pithy ones.
Margret I don't see the relationship between your comment and mine. Can you clarify. Thanks.
Brian what do you think? Pithy (ouch!) or am I just imagining that those two stories were not covered the same way? Perhaps they were not supposed to equally cover both sides of that issue. If that is the case than fine. But don't claim to be objective if that is so. The bias is subtle but it is there as I see it.
Off topic:
The real story here is HOW did Peter Hornbeck get selected by Patterson? It's possible that David Patterson has never met Peter Hornbeck. It's possible that Peter was suggested by someone in one of the environmental groups that supposedly have no undue influence over the park agency. Brian take a look at that. The story could be interesting. No matter what you learn it will shed light on the issue.
SLightly off-topic, but related: I am very disturbed and turned-off by the trend of journalists become part of the stories they are reporting. Many TV news-casters perform and entertain instead of simply delivering the news clearly and completely. Many journalists now show no shame in drawing attention to themselves, their expereince and opinions relative to the news they are reporting. Brian, you are often quite uilty of this. Subjective commentary should be saved for the editorial page and blogs, and should be left out of news reporting.
Margret, I reread your comment and I think I get what you are saying. I think it is possible that the reporters on this story I described may have done it from "their" particular point of view (which I admit I disagree with, but I am not angry). When you insert "your point of view" into a story you are no longer being objective. This can be done by how the story is setup or how the story is arranged and presented. It may not have been done consciously but it did happen in my opinion on the stories I described.
"The climategate story has exploded in the British press"
Indeed it has, as these links attest:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/daily_mail_caught_in_another_l.php
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/09/climate-emails-truth-global-warming
http://www.alternet.org/story/145561/being_%27objective%27_is_killing_newspapers%2C_but_we%27ll_be_much_worse_off_when_they_go_out_of_business
Another point of view.
Brian, I could write forever on this topic but for once, I'll try not to ramble. But what I will say is that a lot of the problems in the realm of objective journalism can be boiled down to one thing: the exceeding reliance on analysis and speculation at the expense of actual reporting.
Why does this matter for objective journalism? Actual reporting tries to be objective. Analysis usually take a point of view. Reporting deals with verified facts. Analysis deals largely in rumors, speculation and attempts to attribute motive.
The way I've described it is that analysis and its Siamese twin, polling, are the dessert of journalism. They are nice and pleasant and, if done well and in small portions, add something to the meal, but they should never be the main course. Too much of the mainstream media now treats them as the main course.
There is no better example of the poison this overreliance can become (to the detriment of the broader media's own reputation) than the recent de facto character assassination of Gov. Paterson.
As Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz, no fire breathing radical, succinctly pointed out, "The media rumor-mongering was all based on whispers about what the Times MIGHT report on Paterson--a flimsy excuse for publishing garbage."
And the problem is that what happened in the Paterson/NYT case is not a merely anomaly but a symptom of a broader structural problem. How did the media allow itself to be manipulated to this extent? In the past, if media outlets didn't have actual news, it would say nothing until it did. Now it fills space/time with speculation and analysis, which quickly becomes a feeding frenzy.
Objective Journalism isn't dead, but it's definitely on life-support. There was a Time editorial by one of its chief officers that journalism should be biased and agenda-driven. Very depressing.
Journalism that isn't objective isn't journalism either. It is yellow and lazy. It is editorial. It is opinion. In the hands of outfits like Fox and MSNBC it becomes propaganda. The fact that neither Fox nor MSNBC is owned by the government is the only thing that distinguishes them from Pravda.
As long as News is treated as entertainment and as long as people don't demand objectivity and higher levels of professionalism from their news outlets, the flow of news is going to run yellow for a very long time.
Post a Comment
<< Home