BuzzMachine

The media pundit's pundit. Written by NYC insider Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine covers news, media, journalism, and politics.

Objectivity schmobjectivity

3 comments on Objectivity schmobjectivity

Objectivity schmobjectivity
: Robert L. Bartley, editor emeritus of the Wall Street Journal, writes today that objectivity in journalism is dead. But he writes about it from the wrong perspective, that of the journalists and their institutions, saying that objectivity is hard to maintain.

I look at it from the audience’s perspective instead. I’ve been saying in this space for sometime the success of both FoxNews and weblogs indicate that the audience expects opinion — and straightforward honesty about that opinion.

: Hylton Jolliffe of Corante also sends us to this article, Rethinking Objectivity.

: See also Bradford Pilcher.

3 responses to “Objectivity schmobjectivity”

  1. John Cheeseman Avatar
    John Cheeseman

    James Madison and the America of his era expected the newspapers to be partisan and open about their leanings. He saw it as the duty of a well informed citizen to read through it all and decide what “the truth” was. I don’t know when all this talk about journalist being objective started (probably when colleges and universities started degree programs in journalism), but it really is insulting to my intelligence for these folks to keep harping about it. This all reminds me of a time not long ago when a print journalist was speaking at an event I was attending and to prove his point about being objective, the fellow stated that he does not vote in any election he has to cover because this could call into question his objectivity. Huh?

  2. cj Avatar
    cj

    I haven’t visited the links yet (…again, and I know I should before commenting, sorry), but whatever happened to the differentiation between NEWS reporting and Opinion?
    Perhaps this never happened (certainly not perfectly), but what passes for a “news article” today is so packed with “loaded” words, that I find myself thinking, “Just the facts, ma’am.”

  3. cj Avatar
    cj

    OK, I’ve read the links. Per one:
    “In other words, let the news be not just about the facts, ma’am. Let it be about the truth of human experience, including that of the journalists. ”
    Sorry, that gets us back to square one. What is “the truth” of human experience — oh no, we’ve just reentered the orbit of bias.
    Let me see if I can succinctly draw the line. Let’s look at the recent Reuters report that was given a byline (I think the name was Deanna Wren) but wasn’t written by that reporter. Look at the context of that article. Is their ANY OBJECTIVITY in that “report”? No! Is that reporting the who, what, when, where, why, how — and letting the reader draw his own conclusions? No!
    I can handle that certain institutions come from a “certain angle” (i.e., FoxNews, the BBC, the NYT). Grant me the respect to my intelligence that I realize their choices of what to report on are going to be “biased” or “non-objective.” Is it too much to ask that, once they’ve decided upon their subject matter, they present the who, what,when,where,why and how — without diving into editorializing?
    Saying ALL news outlets should simply thrust off the cloak of objectivity diminishes the RESPONSIBILITY — and higher calling — of a free press. Yes, it’s harder. But if they don’t strive toward that ideal, we’re left only with warring versions of Al-Jeereza (spelling?).
    That cannot bode well.