I don't think there can be true objectivity. But I think that journalists must strive to be objective. The closer they can be to that goal, the better. They are supposed to ask questions of both sides. I don't think going away from objectivity, or the claims of it, would do us any good at all.

I just don't hold the belief that journalists are trying to portray one side as good, one as bad. I think most are just trying to do a good job telling the story. . . . inherently, people can't help but see certain sides to a story given their personal bent.

I think you take objectivity to mean turning off your brain. That is a misrepresentation of what objectivity means. It doens't mean just reporting what side A and side B say. It means keeping an open mind, listening to both arguments and reporting relevant facts. Sure what each reporter deems as relevant and which sources he or she uses to obtain "facts" can color reporting. But following those guidelines and trying to keep opinion out of the news is definitely important in my view. I am sick of pundits and opinion all the time. I like news to just be news sometimes. I like reporters to gather facts . . not to tell me what to think. And I really honestly believe that most reporters are trying to do just that - - - report news.

My argument is this: Journalists should seek to report the truth. They should seek to serve the readers' best interests. When they have these goals in their hearts and minds while working on a story, they are more likely to do a good job.

Transparancy is fine in its place, but I think you could easily go too far with it. I think a reporter starting off a story with a predetermined public opinion is a mistake. I a journalist says "I'm a progressive. I'm doing a story about how wonderful urban planning is." That is exactly what they will find. By outright stating support for a cause, you kind of cement that idea and belief within yourself. Whereas, if he hasn't committed, he is more likely to LISTEN to those around him, listen to the story, the sources and learn about the community and the issue. Being open and listening are the keys to good journalism. And I'm not going to give up on that just because objectivity screwed us in the Iraq War debate.

Quoting point 3 regarding the essence of journalism

“Journalists rely on a professional discipline for verifying information. When the concept of objectivity originally evolved, it did not imply that journalists are free of bias. It called, rather, for a consistent method of testing information--a transparent approach to evidence--precisely so that personal and cultural biases would not undermine the accuracy of their work. The method is objective, not the journalist. Seeking out multiple witnesses, disclosing as much as possible about sources, or asking various sides for comment, all signal such standards. This discipline of verification is what separates journalism from other modes of communication, such as propaganda, fiction or entertainment.”

Method = objectivity Approach = transparency

(one does not exclude the other)

disclaimer: regarding media -- it's the verification I look for in media 'standards' regarding the W's and H's surrounding an issue.

Actually, although a very flattering portrait the Minnis article was objective in that it reported what other people said about Minnis. (Actually, I thought the Courtney article was closer to reality--more like the actual person.)

There were things lacking (like the way she treats ordinary citizens as opposed to those who work in the building) but it was a point of view profile. We could do worse (and the coverage of Wu's college life as relevant to 2004 was certainly worse).

But viewpoint and objectivity are really like that workshop I went to in college. It was in an auditorium where the the seats were in a semicircle. The speaker held up a large paper cup on its side. The people in the middle saw the side of the cup, the people on one side saw the bottom of the cup, and the people on the other side saw the opening in the top of the cup. The speaker called on people in various parts of the auditorium and asked them what they saw. And then "But how could you see an opening when the woman over there saw the side of the cup?". The point was that wars had started with such a disagreement--where you stand depends on where you sit sort of thing.

b!X states:

“Of course not. But it's also important to remember that part of the context for this conversation is that the media itself has a habit of not subscribing to the method you quote, but to the comparately-newly-minted bastardization of "objectivity".”

I agree with you wholeheartedly that media has a habit of not subscribing to the quote I used (and what I refer to as ‘standards’ in journalism). I also agree with you that the * he-said / she-said * is a bastardization of ‘objectivity’ (and therefore a loss of media standards).

This is precisely the premise for my critique in the Greg Walden Update thread.

(I only bring this up as Jeff referenced it in his original post and for the purpose of illustration / explanation.)

In that thread, I stressed that if we were discussing holding ourselves accountable to standards lost by media – that we should not stop at the mere “she-said” quote obtained by Torrid Joe in our research – for the purposes of this argument -- nor should we have accepted or confused it with ‘objectivity’ in journalism as it was the beginning of journalistic research, not its conclusion. (or to borrow from LT -- an incomplete view of the cup even from one perspective)

While I do commend the conscious effort to obtain and report information that Torrid Joe and the other bloggers demonstrated regarding Walden’s stance – I did not find it sufficient enough to warrant the praise of meeting the larger issue of media’s lost standards. If anything – our acceptance of the ‘she-said’ quote with partial / incomplete information surrounding the details and contexts of the issue / quotes -- actually mimics the media practices we are critiquing.

Again -- none of this matters as we are not, in this forum, held to such media standards. I just think that we shouldnt claim that we are holding up to those standards when we're not.

“Well, to address the Walden episode, I beg to differ yet again. Heh.”

All right.

“What the Torrid Joe report represented was one element to the story.”

Agreed. This is why I stated that as such, it represented an incomplete ‘answer’ (it was a beginning rather than a conclusion).

“In a more traditional media environment -- say, the newspaper at a daily paper -- there would be more conversation and several more steps before anything was published.”

Agreed. For the sake of further clarity, this process, if true to our agreed-upon media standards would reflect a “consistent method of testing information--a transparent approach to evidence--precisely so that personal and cultural biases would not undermine the accuracy of their work.”

At this stage of the journalism process, certain questions arise and the process is designed with (much needed) standards in place so as to address those questions and avoid those things which ‘undermine’ the accuracy of information. I’m assuming that we agree here so please do correct me if I’m wrong.

“In the world of weblogs, that conversation and those steps take place out in the open, within a given weblog or between/amongst more than one weblog. The process is comparable, it's just that it happens out in the open.”

Yes, I understand this.

If the process is comparable, and IF we are being held to the standard I quoted above (and that I assumed we agree on?) then doesn’t it follow that we mustn’t accept bastardized objectivity of ‘he-said / she-said’ as answers to those questions that arise in the process?

Shouldn’t we be careful to avoid those things that serve to potentially ‘undermine’ the accuracy of information such as a lack of verification (web links are fine), clarity on context (re: quotes or questions surrounding the issue), etc.?

Re: further clarity on the comparable

“Part of the problem here is that both writers and readers are still learning the new literacy required to understand how news is published via web logs.”

I don’t view conjecture, opinion etc. on web logs as objective news, nor do I uphold it as a desired element of the process we refer to when creating objective news.

We seem, however, to agree that there are lost standards within media and what you call “new literacy”; I call media literacy in general.

Media reform advocates (myself included) believe that media literacy is required of all makers of media, the writers of it and the readers as well.

The blogging community, digital media (makers and consumers) in general -- are not exempt from benefiting from media literacy – it is all the more necessary when a web log seeks to have contributors collaborate on obtaining ‘objective’ news (or holding itself and the contributors accountable to an ethical guideline of media standards) -- as opposed to merely providing a ‘subjective’ forum for user comments.

Even though it makes me cringe, I do tend to agree with you that blogging illustrates “how journalism is made, because bloggers are engaging in the entire process publicly, rather than within the walls of the newsroom.” I contend, however – that it does not meet the standards which (correct me if I’m wrong) you and I agree on in this thread thus far (which is why I cringe).

Just because one can state that blogging potentially exposes a correlation to journalism and how “all the steps are published along the way,” -- one mustn’t assume that the steps taken are correctly taken when watched in the context of a guideline for standards that media has lost.

But the article goes on to describe incidents which demonstrate that the protesters were injured and that the City agreed--thus the settlement.

First, I don't see the city agreeing in that story. I see them admitting unspecified "mistakes" and saying they want the case to go away because they're not confident of their chances with a jury. And I see lawyers for the plaintiffs describing what happened. Given that, it's perfectly appropriate for the headline to have that sort of qualification in it.

Whether or not the editorial page tinkered with that slugline in yesterday's article, this is exactly the bias I tried to identify.  It gives, at the very least, the appearance of editorial overstepping.

That's pretty laughable. Most people in the newsroom couldn't give two shits what the editorial page thinks about anything. And if they tried to interfere with the writing or editing of a story, they'd have a pretty short career.

"Objective" journalism has been around a long time and has little to do with current political conflicts. It emerged as a goal of journalists long ago, some suggest as far back as Andrew Jackson (so that journalists would not be seen as tools of mercantalists and planters). It really took hold in the Progressive Era (1890s).

Michael Schudson, Discovering the News Herbert Gans, Deciding Whats News

b!X states:

In essence, weblogs that work in this way inherently come with a disclaimer: "This is what we've heard so far, and who we've heard it from". It's just that it would be extraordinarily unwieldy to actually include that disclaimer on everything that's posted.

As inconvenient or unwieldy as it may be to cite sources, extend research, verify leads, remain objective etc. – I suggest one endure the inconvenience and begin to wield the discipline to do so only in the event that a blog posits that it’s contributor(s):

“represents a kind of accountability we used to want the press demand from our leaders. Now we can demand it ourselves.” as stated by Jeff

Jeff?

Something just ocurred to me --

I filled in your paragraph like this (below) in my mind when I first read it:

“...represents a kind of accountability we used to want from the press and demand from our leaders. Now we can demand it ourselves.”

-- which led me to the critique I derived at (with all of my issues and baggage re: Media Reformin tow)-- but it ocurred to me just now that I may have been filling it in all wrong and changed the context / meaning (therefore your intention) through misinterpretation?

I'm sorry if this is the case.

Only a short comment (you wish) for now. On the particulars, as The Oregonian has them:

"But city taxpayers can't be faulted for wishing ... that this $300,000 would be going to parks and potholes, not the pockets of lawyers and litigious protesters."

Alan Graf, in an interview on the KBOO 90.7 FM (kboo.fm) 5 o'clock news, said the attorneys fees and court costs, ("ten attorneys for two years," I think I heard him say), come in addition to the $300,000 reparations to plaintiffs. It could cost the city millions of dollars to be able to save the money it economizes by hiring police less well-educated, less well-adjusted, less well-seasoned (read: "older"), at the lower wages that roustabouts, tinhorns, and newbies can be hired for.

So The 'O' may have it wrong, the settlement amounts are not going into "the pockets of lawyers" -- they're extra. Stay tuned for the 'objective' facts of the outcome and/or a newspaper correction.

Further note: Not in the news story nor the editorial was it accurately stated that the Bush, the Bush uber-security robogoons, and the anti-Bush demonstration, all converged in the name of a Gordon Smith 2002 Campaign fundraiser. If Smith is going to book his fear leader for a greed-money appearance, then Smith owes to pay for the unlawful damage and breakage Bush causes.

The 'O' is covering up Smith's blame for this whole thing. The City should countersue Smith to recover losses. This $300,000-plus-costs settlement should have included a personal apology from Smith to the Oregonians who were shot, assaulted, beaten, and poisoned by the security force needed to keep Smith in a bubblewrap to campaign for office away from voters.

Why does the newspaper cover-up for Gordon Smith? What's the objective? (To be continued....)

In the vast array of commentary thusfar, I see something missing. That is, the frightening collusion of interests that occurs when competition in the media is stifled and therefore, "freedom of the press" falls by the wayside. The root cause of so much bad (i.e. non-objective, lazy etc.) journalism is the lack of competition. Journalism is, in that sense, just like any "service industry". Its standards will fall without proper competition. Connect the dots, people! The government has been loosening standards and allowing absurd levels of media concentration for over two decades now. Concentrate on changing the problem at the source and eventually we will see the end product change. It's time to demand accountability from our leaders in DC, especially (because media regulation is almost totally at the federal level...perhaps something else that should change?). Last year's outcry to the FCC over the latest ownership giveaway should be only the beginning. There is a lot of work to do. Who's in???

I've read this chain with interest, especially hearing from non-reporters about what reporters strive for. I was a newspaper reporter for 10 years and have been out of the business for about eight years. On the outside, I learned that there's a certain newsroom mentality in which we assumed our public knew things about how a newspaper works that they don't understand, such as the difference between the editorial page and editorial staff and the news pages and the news staff. The average reader doesn't know the difference and doesn't know about the firewall between the two departments, for example.

Today, any journalist who says the goal is objectivity is probably a broadcast reporter who doesn't know anything about journalism.

Any journalist worth anything knows you don't strive for objectivity -- you strive for fairness. And that's the way any good journalist talks about what he or she is after. Do you understand what the sources are saying to you? Do you have all the major angles covered? Have you looked at all the important data, and do you understand it?

Then you write your story. You try to tell a compelling and interesting story, something that the public will read. You try to represent the important aspects of the story. You try to do some truth-telling.

Be objective? No one can do that, not even the best reporter. You choose a lens through which to look at a story, and you do your best to get the tale across in the 15 column inches you have. Sometimes you have more space and can fill out a story.

But you can’t cover every angle and every side. That is a limitation of summarizing complex issues. You can't make it appealing to all parties. But when you put your product out there, if you're worth anything, you evaluate it, you listen to feedback, and you make positive changes to your reporting and writing for future stories.

Clearly, not all news outlets are interested in fairness. Fox News on the conservative side, for example, or Dan Rather on the liberal side at times in his anchor's career. But, hey, that’s the price we pay for a free media, whether its consolidated or vast.

Is it OK to complain in this thread about the general laziness of the press these days? How they swallow just about anything with only minimal skepticism or question, lest they lose their status at WH press conferences or briefings?

Or how television looks first for the easy visual and then builds their story around it instead of doing the work to make a story and then figuring out what visuals might work?

Loved WWs article about whether or not the Boregonian is going to send their staff out to help that newspaper in the midwest where the staff is on strike? And their excuse was something like "No one wants to see a newpaper go unpublished (cannot lose those ad revenues!)". Like drop-in foreign reporters are going to find the really important stories the public needs to see in that city.

Good thread folks.

This conversation reminds me a bit of my grandmother...She is an apolitical conservative. I know a few of these. They claim to know nothing about politics, yet had Bush/Cheney stickers and forwarded emails about Bush lovingly visiting soldiers in the hospital.

Anyway, she just loves "fair and balanced" Fox News because they tell HER version of the truth.

Objectivity comes from both the journalist and the reader. If you want to find a bias, you will. And if you agree with the bias, you are far less likely to notice it.

With that in mind, I avoid The Nation and other very left publications as much as I avoid Fox News.

This is also why I introduced my students to The Onion back when I was not an underemployed teacher. I didn't tell them it was satire and they all freaked out a little. A lesson in remembering to think for themselves and, as the cliche goes, not believing everything they read.

Disclaimer: posted at the risk of sounding redundant

Fairness, transparency, the process of verification, etc. (of information being presented in a news article which serves to inform the public on the facts surrounding an issue) each represent an ethical approach (standard of media) that are applied to an 'objective method'.

While I understand the post-modern pastime of playing with semantic riddles and their literal applications / contexts in a world where everything is perceived through a subjective lens – I don’t understand discounting the words used to embody ideal concepts on the grounds that they are too “idealistic” or “naïve”.

It seems, while reading this thread, that the word / concept “objective / objectivity” is being tainted and discarded in such a manner. Why not toss out other relics such as “truth” and “love” in similar fashion while we’re at it, Jeff?

Jeff states that his interest in objectivity is twofold: “ I'm interested in it as a intellectual riddle” and “also regard it as a critical element of our Democracy” but then (perhaps from too much postmodern pondering of the riddle?) he goes on to state that “I remain convinced we can do it in a fair, transparent manner – but possibly leaving aside the notion of ‘objectivity’ as a relic from the past is a good place to start.” This begs the question (in my mind) that if objectivity is, as Jeff states, “a critical element of our Democracy” then why “leave it aside”? Is the word not cool enough for the postmodernists?

I'm not cool -- but I’ll join in the postmodern game anyway and grant that “objectivity” is an ideal. And yes, even unrealistic in its purest form (as most ideals are). I still contend, however, that fairness, transparency, the verification process etc. are the realistic approaches (standards) that we apply and that should be used to strive towards that ideal.

After all, hasn’t humanity always strived towards an ‘ideal’ of various forms? “Democracy” itself represents a striving towards a ‘utopian’ ideal of sorts – ‘objectivity’ likewise strives towards a similar ideal of ‘truth’.

One would think that using the ideal of ‘objectivity’ as a guide to develop methods and ‘standards’ would be advisable – especially in a society which relies on media to function in a role of checks and balances, informing and alerting the public when something within that society is amiss.

For what its worth, I think that the majority of people contributing to this thread (Jeff included) agree that fairness, transparency and process of verification are necessary standards of media. Where we seem to differ is mainly in choosing to admit that these are approaches to an objective method in journalism. (Due to a petty distaste for the word 'objective'?)

Towards resolving that difference, I’ll quote again point 3 from the link that Jeff and b!X have pointed us to in their posts:

“When the concept of objectivity originally evolved, it did not imply that journalists are free of bias. It called, rather, for a consistent method of testing information--a transparent approach to evidence--precisely so that personal and cultural biases would not undermine the accuracy of their work. The method is objective, not the journalist. Seeking out multiple witnesses, disclosing as much as possible about sources, or asking various sides for comment, all signal such standards. This discipline of verification is what separates journalism from other modes of communication, such as propaganda, fiction or entertainment. But the need for professional method is not always fully recognized or refined.”

Method = objective Approach = transparent

Do we really not agree and if so, pray tell -- why?

sorry about the italics nightmare above -- it's been a long day.

Andrew:

While I agree with the majority of your post (and I’m with you on being willing to tackle the work involved in media reform) I do disagree with the statement that “the root cause of so much bad journalism is the lack of competition.” This is not to say that I, in any way, condone media monopolies or that I don’t view them as a factor contributing to the loss of quality journalism -- just merely that the root(s) of the problem dig deeper than that.

You hit the nail on the head, so to speak, when you state that FCC regulation is one such root issue and how its policies being defined and negotiated at the federal level must change.

The public owns the airwaves – not the monopolies. The public should be actively engaged and aware of the policies governing their use (hence the need for media literacy initiatives) -- but we have been removed from such policy debates. As such, our media system and its current lack of accountability, loose adherence to media standards (such as successfully bastardizing a method of objectivity to the point where its now no longer desired!)is the direct result of years of conscious government policymaking.

Change begins where we’re at though – and there are a number of organizations leading the way in media reform and assisting with the formation of others at a grass roots level. Check out the following url: http://www.freepress.net/news/ and order their free packet.

On their site they explain that: Free Press is a national nonpartisan organization working to increase informed public participation in crucial media policy debates, and to generate policies that will produce a more competitive and public interest-oriented media system with a strong nonprofit and noncommercial sector.

They're worth checking out.

spooky stuff re: federal control of media (to change the subject -- or escalate it)

Former CIA Director George J. Tenet yesterday called for new security measures to guard against attacks on the United States that use the Internet, which he called "a potential Achilles' heel."

"I know that these actions will be controversial in this age when we still think the Internet is a free and open society with no control or accountability," he told an information-technology security conference in Washington, "but ultimately the Wild West must give way to governance and control." </i>