{"id":1070,"date":"2016-10-12T11:31:07","date_gmt":"2016-10-12T16:31:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/trot\/?p=1070"},"modified":"2016-10-12T11:31:07","modified_gmt":"2016-10-12T16:31:07","slug":"the-illusion-of-media-objectivity","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/trot\/2016\/10\/12\/the-illusion-of-media-objectivity\/","title":{"rendered":"The Illusion of Media Objectivity"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Photo<\/a>
Photo by Ryan Godfrey, Flickr CC<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

During a political season in which very little has gone according to script, one thing has been fairly predictable: the demand on all sides for “media objectivity.”<\/span><\/p>\n

Advocates for objective political reporting are typically referring to journalistic conventions that include using direct quotes, presenting “both” sides of the story, and focusing on the presentation of “material facts.” These facts, we are often told, speak for themselves. But as intuitive and appealing as the call for neutral, unbiased reporting might sound, however, sociologists have been both cautious and critical. <\/span><\/p>\n

One reason for sociological skepticism is that the notion of objectivity in political journalism is actually a fairly recent historical invention. It has less to do with balance or fairness than it does with ritualized procedures journalists use to protect themselves from the pressures they face in the day-to-day reporting of complex issues. Objectivity, in this sense, emerged as a kind of protective blanket for political journalists. <\/span><\/h5>\n