Scholars who study journalism, myself included, have found that efforts by journalists to stay neutral often backfire, resulting in exactly the opposite effect they desire. Journalists, for example, may try to balance “both sides” of a contentious issue, seeking out authoritative sources to give a credible account of each position. But, in seeking out authoritative people, they simultaneously offer a public platform to the very people who are already powerful.
Along these lines, Describing early coverage of the Vietnam War, Hallin (1986: 25) writes:
…most of the reporting, in the best tradition of objective journalism, ‘just gave the facts.’ But they were not just any facts. They were official facts, facts about what the president said and what ‘officials here believe.’ The effect of ‘objectivity’ was not to free the news of political influence, but to open wide the channel through which official influence flowed (my emphasis).
More, because journalists need highly-authoritative sources in order to do their job, they need to cultivate relationships with them. Likewise, authorities need reporters to help them get their stories to the public.
Powerful reporters and powerful people, then, become… friendly. Reporters may try to avoid saying these that their regular sources wouldn’t want said, partly because they like them and are influenced them, and partly because they need them for the next story and the next.
I thought of this research when Jay Livingston posted this picture, on the Montclair SocioBlog, of Alan Greenspan and David Brooks having lunch together:
Note: The photo was removed at the request of the person who took it. Sorry.
Greenspan is the former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Brooks is a decorated journalist.
Source: Hallin, D. (1986) The ‘Uncensored War’: The Media and Vietnam. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lisa Wade, PhD is an Associate Professor at Tulane University. She is the author of American Hookup, a book about college sexual culture; a textbook about gender; and a forthcoming introductory text: Terrible Magnificent Sociology. You can follow her on Twitter and Instagram.
Comments 10
Seth Eag — November 7, 2011
On objectivity, I remember a few years ago a certain 'C-SPAN paradox' that arose when the network tried to remain unbiased. C-SPAN is famous for lacking a point-of-view and simply presenting things as they happen. Yet when they decided to broadcast a speech by a holocaust historian, they also decided that—for fairness' sake—they had to broadcast a speech by a holocaust denier. So in this sense objectivity becomes inherently biased by presenting two ideas which are not equally true, history and fantasy, as being equals. We see this also a lot with climate change, evolution, etc.
Muscat — November 7, 2011
An interesting post, but the title seems a bit misleading. The second half of the post (and the apparent "sociological image" that spurred the entire post) doesn't seem to be so much about the "bias of objectivity" as about the more traditional "bias of subjectivity" - and illustrating that journalists are not immune to it.
Anonymous — November 7, 2011
Powerful reporters ARE powerful people. Freedom of the press is about keeping the power out of the hands of the people in power. The problem is that journalists can be bought just as easily as politicians, and news consumers in general no longer demand factual accuracy in their news.
Speaking of Alan Greenspan and writers:
With Ayn Rand.
Parker — November 7, 2011
I'm reminded of Becker's "hierarchy of credibility."
Objectivity in Journalism by bethany - Pearltrees — December 11, 2011
[...] …most of the reporting, in the best tradition of objective journalism, ‘just gave the facts.’ But they were not just any facts. They were official facts, facts about what the president said and what ‘officials here believe.’ The effect of ‘objectivity’ was not to free the news of political influence, but to open wide the channel through which official influence flowed (my emphasis). More, because journalists need highly-authoritative sources in order to do their job, they need to cultivate relationships with them. Likewise, authorities need reporters to help them get their stories to the public. The Bias of Objectivity in U.S. Journalism » Sociological Images [...]
Objectivity in Journalism by sarahlouiseharrison - Pearltrees — December 12, 2011
[...] The Bias of Objectivity in U.S. Journalism » Sociological Images …most of the reporting, in the best tradition of objective journalism, ‘just gave the facts.’ But they were not just any facts. They were official facts, facts about what the president said and what ‘officials here believe.’ The effect of ‘objectivity’ was not to free the news of political influence, but to open wide the channel through which official influence flowed (my emphasis). More, because journalists need highly-authoritative sources in order to do their job, they need to cultivate relationships with them. Likewise, authorities need reporters to help them get their stories to the public. [...]