Image on loan from Spot.Us

There’s an interesting article by Sameer Bhuchar at PBS’s MediaShift Idea Lab about a survey of users of the community-funded journalism organization Spot.Us on what they think about the importance of objectivity in journalism. There are several charts accompanying the piece showing the results, which speak for themselves.

The most striking thing about the study for me was the fact that it gave us a glimpse of just how wide a range of definitions people have for “objectivity.” A sample of those definitions are included in the Community Views section of Bhuchar’s post. To me, that seems to indicate a need for more precise questions in future studies about objectivity. If you ask, “How important is objectivity?” and everyone responds with a different definition in mind, the data will be pretty misleading. For instance, do those who say objectivity is important think he-said-she-said journalism is ok? Or do they merely define objectivity as something that does not include the practice of creating a false balance? Also consider that “objectivity” — and “transparency” for that matter — has become a pretty loaded word in this debate, and its use likely would trigger some sort of strong reaction one way or another.

My suggestion would be that instead of asking about “objectivity” or “transparency”, a future survey should ask about the various practices and approaches associated with those concepts. For instance, you can ask people to rate, on a numerical scale, the importance of each of the following in journalism:

• Giving all sides of a debate an equal chance to make their case to the reporter.
• Giving all sides equal space in the story to make their case.
• Constructing the story to give each sides’ arguments equal weight.
• Presenting a counter-argument for every argument put forth in a story.
• Limiting the story to only information that is factually verifiable.
• The reporter maintaining a detached position from the players in the story.
• Drawing a conclusion for or against a particular argument based on the information presented in the story.
• Disclosing the reporter’s biases that are directly related to the story’s core issue.
• Disclosing anything in the reporter’s background that may be indirectly linked to the story’s core issue and thus could color the reporter’s views.
• Posting transcripts of the complete interviews with each person mentioned in the story.

This way, you avoid getting mired in a debate about the grand notions of “objectivity” and “transparency,” which can be pretty fruitless when everyone has a different idea of what exactly those terms mean and what results they lead to. Instead, you get at the real issue: Which parts of current journalism practices are not working and should be eliminated, which parts are working and should be preserved, and which new practices should be incorporated more. The resulting set of practices may not be pure objectivity or transparency per any one person’s definition, but it probably will be better than anything you can get by continuing to deal with the issue at the level of those vague, ill-defined terms.

For the Sake of Transparency

The opinions from the Community Views section of Bhuchar’s post that I agree the most with are these two:

” ‘Transparency is the new objectivity’ is a fun riff, and it’s close, but I think we (in the media business) grossly overstate the public’s interest in our affiliations and conflicts.” — Ryan Sholin

“No one is truly unbiased or objective but that doesn’t mean that a good reporter doesn’t look for the truth behind everyone’s agenda. Objectivity means not sitting on a story that would make someone look bad just because you’re invested in their success. I almost said “Transparency is the new objectivity” only because it is the latest and most fabulous word to throw around. Transparency only helps identify lapses in objectivity, it doesn’t replace it. As for transparency, it certainly helps identify lapses in objectivity, but it doesn’t replace it.” — Amanda Hickman

I bolded that sentence in the second response because it closely aligns with my thoughts on the subject. Transparency and objectivity do not occupy the same niche and are therefore not in direct competition with each other. Thus it would be folly to posit that the adoption of one necessitates the abandonment of the other. I wrote more about this thought in an earlier post.

I’ve always seen the rising emphasis on transparency as a greater benefit for the audience than for journalists. For the audience, transparency provides more information on which they can base their decision of whether or not to trust the report. For journalists, however, it remains to be seen whether that transparency earns more trust in their work — the ultimate motivation for journalists practicing transparency — or whether it simply increases the likelihood of trust and distrust equally. Transparency is a clear plus for the audience, but I’m not sure if it’s a clear plus for journalists or if it’s one of those “you can’t afford not to” things where the best you can hope for is breaking even because it beats a minus. In any case, the answer to that question doesn’t change the fact that increased transparency is here to stay. However, that fact also doesn’t necessarily dictate that we must do away with objectivity … at least the way I define “objectivity.”

Side Notes

The survey data, which the post itself admits are not scientific, raised a few other questions for me:

• In order to see whether this data represents a shift in opinions about the importance of objectivity in journalism, we need to have something to compare it to.
• The sample included both journalists and non-journalists. I’d be interested to see how the answers to the questions concerning objectivity break down within each of those of segments. Also, how does that breakdown within each segment compare with previous surveys about journalists’ and non-journalists’ opinions on objectivity?
• The answer options for some of these questions are not really mutually exclusive. For instance, on the question “Is objectivity even possible?”, the answers “Yes, that’s what journalism is” and “Possible but difficult. It separates wheat from chaff” can co-exist. The fact that I pick one doesn’t mean I’d reject the other. In fact, can you not legitimately say, “Objectivity is possible but difficult. It separates good journalism from bad. Therefore, that’s what journalism is”?
• I also question some of Bhuchar’s interpretations of what some of the responses mean. For instance, he says

A staggering 44.6 percent (199) people agreed with the answer, “Objectivity is possible but difficult. It separates wheat from chaff.” In essence the answer implies that objectivity should be seen more as a quest for honest, factual reporting.

To me at least, it’s difficult to draw a real connection between the answer and the interpretation. It seems a bit of a leap to reach that conclusion based on that answer alone. The same holds for his interpretation of the next answer option:

Of the respondents, 27.6 percent (123 people) chose the answer “transparency is the new objectivity,” implying that it is the reporting of truth that is most important, rather than a detached account of a scene.

So how does “objectivity” come to mean “a detached account of the scene” in the second answer option, but “honest, factual reporting” in the first?