Comments on: The Bias of Objectivity in U.S. Journalism

By: Objectivity in Journalism by sarahlouiseharrison - Pearltrees

Objectivity in Journalism by sarahlouiseharrison - Pearltrees — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 18:00:18 +0000

[…] 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. […]

By: Objectivity in Journalism by bethany - Pearltrees

Objectivity in Journalism by bethany - Pearltrees — Sun, 11 Dec 2011 23:44:23 +0000

[…] …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 […]

By: Umlud

Umlud — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 15:40:00 +0000

In that point, I would agree with you. However, I think that the normative social position about some topics are based on unstated morals that bleed into politics and journalism. Your example makes the case very well. I think that the (often) unquestioned social normative position of “save the patient’s life” is one reason why we get the rather (to me) strange news coverage of euthanasia that we do. (IOW, I don’t think that it was politics alone that caused Dr. Kevorkian to become so polarizing, why Terri Schiavo became a public media storm, nor why fabricated “death panels” gained so much traction in society.)

By: William Angel

William Angel — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 14:23:00 +0000

Concerning the issue of “doctors who don’t want to save patients’ lives.”, there would seem to be two sides to this issue. To what degree are doctors expected to resort to heroic measures to prolong the life of a patient? Or put another way, when is euthanasia preferable to prolonging the life of the terminally ill?
Since this discussion topic is about journalism and not about moral choices, the point I am making is that it would be appropriate for a journalist, in a discussion of treatment for the terminally ill, to include a variety of medical perspectives on the issue of euthanasia.

By: Mae Spires

Mae Spires — Mon, 07 Nov 2011 20:46:00 +0000

I doubt they would have even considered presenting the opinion of a 9/11 conspiracist alongside someone speaking about 9/11. Why should it possibly be different with the Holocaust?

This “presenting both sides” (as though, of course, there are only two) has gotten out of hand. In a great many cases, all positions are simply not all equally valid, and to pretend otherwise is not objectivity — it’s stupidity.

By: Parker

Parker — Mon, 07 Nov 2011 20:41:00 +0000

I’m reminded of Becker’s “hierarchy of credibility.”

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 07 Nov 2011 19:47:00 +0000

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.

By: Umlud

Umlud — Mon, 07 Nov 2011 18:34:00 +0000

I think that a large part of this type of pursuit of “balance” arises from journalists not feeling able (or enough of an authority, perhaps) in effectively countering the position of “the other side”. However, there are many times when journalists don’t present “the other side” of a debate, because there is no scientifically credible nor authoritatively credible “other side” to the debate: gravity deniers or doctors who don’t want to save patients’ lives.

In the first case (gravity denial), there is no authoritative scientist who is credible enough to the public to overturn their idea of what they know about gravity. Gravity — to most people — exists as an immutable fact of their daily experience, and the denial of gravity is something that only the highly credulous would accept. (However, in explaining quantum mechanics to the general public would likely make many start to rely increasingly upon the authority of the speaker as opposed to the credibility of the science.)

The second point (doctors who don’t want to save patients’ lives) is one where scientific objectivity has nothing to say about the matter. However, we understand that doctors are supposed to save their patients, and so this social norm precludes the question of whether there ought to be “another side” to the debate.

In the questions of climate change, evolution, vaccination, and even fluoride in the drinking water, there are scientific measurements, but there are also opinions from authoritative people who agree with the scientific measurements, and those that don’t agree with them. However, if we wish to be a society that places trust in science to describe a world that isn’t always a simple, linear, mechanical, action-reaction world, then the burden of proof should be on the authority that does not agree with the scientific consensus, and not equally on both.

EDIT: I just came across a piece that makes a lot of the points about confusing science with authority, what accounts for being an authoritative figure, and denying climate change (by attacking the messenger’s authority):
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/11/07/362111/fox-attacks-on-un-climate-pane/

By: Muscat

Muscat — Mon, 07 Nov 2011 18:03:00 +0000

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.

By: Seth Eag

Seth Eag — Mon, 07 Nov 2011 17:50:00 +0000

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.