Rhetorica: Press-Politics Journal

Cunningham explains the allure of objectivity:

Objectivity has persisted for some valid reasons, the most important being that nothing better has replaced it. And plenty of good journalists believe in it, at least as a necessary goal. Objectivity, or the pursuit of it, separates us from the unbridled partisanship found in much of the European press. It helps us make decisions quickly--we are disinterested observers after all--and it protects us from the consequences of what we write. We'd like to think it buoys our embattled credibility...And as we descend into this new age of partisanship, our readers need, more than ever, reliable reporting that tells them what is true when that is knowable, and pushes as close to truth as possible when it is not.

I agree with that last part about reliable reporting--the original intent of journalistic objectivity. I think objectivity is best conceived as a process, much like scientific method, for discovering, gathering, examining, evaluating, interpreting, and presenting information "as close to truth as possible" (notice: no definite article). Objectivity in journalism should not be equated with the pristine ideal of so much failed philosophy.

Cunningham takes his critique of (philosophical) objectivity (applied to journalism) in an interesting direction:

But our pursuit of objectivity can trip us up on the way to "truth." Objectivity excuses lazy reporting. If you're on deadline and all you have is "both sides of the story," that's often good enough. It's not that such stories laying out the parameters of a debate have no value for readers, but too often, in our obsession with, as The Washington Post's Bob Woodward puts it, "the latest," we fail to push the story, incrementally, toward a deeper understanding of what is true and what is false.

I would assert that journalistic objectivity, as I defined it above, helps cure this ill. Here we see the two, philosophic and journalistic objectivity, equated:

Some 75 percent of journalists and news executives in a 1999 Pew Research Center survey said it was possible to obtain a true, accurate, and widely agreed-upon account of an event. More than two-thirds thought it feasible to develop "a systematic method to cover events in a disinterested and fair way."

The problem term here is "disinterested." This remnant of scientific method remains part of the defining characteristic of journalistic attitude long after so much of the scientific community has dismissed it (as an attitude if not as a process). Interest is what compels you to look at something--consider its importance, structure, or utility--in the first place. Journalists, however, apply disinterest to attitude--despite what the quote above implies--leading to exactly the silliness Cunningham recounts.

Cunningham concludes with two "modest proposals" for rethinking objectivity. Each is worth serious consideration.

An added bonus of this interesting article: Cunningham demonstrates an understanding of the structural biases of journalism. (via Romenesko)