Is There Really Any Objective Journalism?

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same." Ronald Reagan

Tuesday, March 20, 2012 <http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=874195433918198663#editor/target=post;postID=3508728666123779463> 

Is There Really Any Objective Journalism? I saw a story <http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/19/study-state-governments-at-high-risk-for-corruption/> on the Fox News website yesterday about a recent study done on corruption in state governments. 

The study was done by "The Center for Public Integrity" <http://www.iwatchnews.org/about> and the results are reported to show a great deal of corruption and unethical behavior in all 50 states. Each state was graded, with no state receiving an A, and 8 states being given F's. After seeing that all of the states with F's, were red states with Republican governors, I decided to take a closer look. The rest of the states were pretty evenly split between Republican and Democrat governors, with Chris Christie's New Jersey receiving the highest grade. So, other than the bottom 8 all being red, the study doesn't appear to be biased toward either party, but something still didn't seem right. The Center for Public Integrity claims to be "one of the oldest non-partisan, non-profit investigative news organizations in the country". Their website says they are funded by charitable foundations and individual donations, and that it "does not accept funding from labor unions or governments". However, after taking a look at the archived articles, they appear to be anything but non-partisan, unbiased, objective, or investigative. The vast majority of stories in the political section were anti-Republican, with a lot of focus on the potential GOP nominees. The major agenda issue for the organization is environmentalism/climate change and they are decidedly on the side of man caused climate change. They are also very supportive of government controlled health care with, again, no dissenting views. There are slight hints of anti-militarism, anti-business, and pro-globalization; they have a sister organization called "The Center for Global Integrity". While there is no campaigning or open endorsement of the Democratic party, the vast majority of content is decidedly liberal/progressive. In an article mocking Rick Santorum for calling global warming a hoax, which says it was written "By FactCheck.Org", the writer say "Santorum isn't the only skeptic, but skeptics are rare among scientists who actually study the climate." Yeah, not so much. It appears that facts can be rare among some organizations that have the words "Fact Check" in their name.While the authors brag about their data set of 1,372 climate researchers, they fail to mention the more than 31,000 scientists that have signed the petition denouncing the theory of man made global warming, at http://petitionproject.org/. Evidently, their investigative journalists failed to uncover that The Heartland Institute has held multiple international meetings for skeptics, that have been attended by over 1,000 climate scientists. This type of one sided editorializing is nothing new, but, it's increasingly becoming the only type of news we ever see; and far too many people just accept it as fact. As for the Center's claims of non-partisan funding, the list of supporting foundations <http://www.iwatchnews.org/about/our-work/supporters> are decisively progressive and share similar ideologies including environmental justice, social justice, global economic justice, and sustainability. The following are just a few examples:

• Adessium Foundation <http://www.adessium.org/>
• California Endowment <http://www.calendow.org/>
• The Ford Foundation <http://www.fordfoundation.org/>
• The Joyce Foundation <http://www.joycefdn.org/>
• Oak Foundation <http://www.oakfnd.org/>
• Soros.org/Open Society Foundations <http://www.soros.org/>

The Executive Director of The Center is Bill Buzenberg, former vice president of the left leaning National Public Radio (NPR). I have no problem with writers or pundits voicing their opinions, that's their job and we have our share on the right. The difference is; we know which side Rush Limbaugh or James Carville is on. When organizations that portray themselves as non-partisan watchdogs are secretly promoting an agenda it becomes dangerous. Theories are presented as fact, and accepted as such by much of the general public. The sad fact is, we can no longer trust anything we see, hear, or read in the news. We must take the time to investigate it ourselves. Fortunately, that's not hard to do. There is so little questioning of what's reported, that the authors of the lies don't even bother trying to cover their tracks. Our country and our freedoms are being taken, but not by force or coercion. We're surrendering them voluntarily because we're too lazy or ignorant to see the truth.

Read More

Objectivity in Journalism

One important start to this conversation will be finding others asking similar questions. Objectivity in Journalism means we should present arguments made on all sides of issues, whether the person posting leans more conservative, moderate, or liberal. Good Journalism moderates the debate but takes no side. This post asks if Objective Journalism still exists:
http://oneconservativedad.blogspot.com/2012/03/is-there-really-any-objective.html

Read More

Should Journalism be Amoral?

George Orwell the Journalist
<http://objectivejournalismcenter.blogspot.com/2012/05/this-post-kicks-off-what-is-intended-to.html>
<http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=874195433918198663&amp;postID=7667671752662165201&amp;from=pencil> 

Should Journalism be Amoral?Published May 9, 2011 | By Matt Baum http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/author/matt-baum/
"George Orwell was not a peace journalist; he was a proper journalist!"

Jean Seaton, professor of media history at the university of Westminster and official historian for the BBC, hurled the comment from her seat in the audience onto the stage, interrupting the current speaker, Richard Keeble, professor at the University of Lincoln’s school of journalism. Keeble’s passing claim on George Orwell in last Saturday’s OxPeace <http://cis.politics.ox.ac.uk/research/Projects/oxfpeace.asp> conference on “Media in Conflict and Peace building” (recordings of the talks will shortly be available on OUCS iTunes <http://itunes.ox.ac.uk/> ) visibly (and audibly) upset Seaton, who was present also as a speaker.

Why did Seaton treat the title of “peace journalist” as an insult?
In the brief Q & A that followed, Seaton explained that Orwell was a proper journalist because he constantly tried to undermine his own assumptions when investigating a story, to be as objective as possible, to pursue and depict the truth, no matter what that truth; what he was not doing was journalism pre-devoted to a particular ideology like peace. To Seaton, this was the role of proper journalism, to report objectively for (as she articulated in her talk earlier that day) journalism should be an “amoral” process.

By “amoral,” I do not think that Seaton meant that journalism should have no moral code – indeed as another panelists responded later in the conference, she clearly supported a morality in which journalism should care about the objective truth – but that moral considerations should not apply to the practice of journalism. Journalism viewed as a tool for promoting peace (a preconceived moral goal), therefore, would be improper journalism. If the objective truth happens to promote peace building, great, but if it promotes further violence, so be it as long it is the objective truth.

This debate about what journalism should and should not be – a moral debate – ran beneath the conference like the plumbing beneath New York: not given enough attention but vitally important. So perhaps we can continue the discussion here: Can journalism be amoral?

The ideal of the impartial, objective journalist in search of the Truth with a capital T, particularly an analogy of journalism as a “clear lens” surfaced and resurfaced. The emerging research in linguistics, psychology and neuroscience on the impact of framing, priming, and unconscious bias on how we perceive the world and how we communicate seriously calls into question whether a “clear lens” can ever be attained. But for the sake of argument, let us grant that this same research could allow journalists to notice and account for these effects to act as lenses without distortion; then can journalism be amoral?

Any photographer will tell you that even with a clear lens what is important is where you point that lens. Time, attention, and money are limited resources, and decisions on how to expend those resources are often moral ones. In medical ethics, this is well known: which procedures to fund in socialized healthcare programs like the NHS. In journalism too, not all stories, for practical reasons, can be covered. Which to cover and how many resources to spend on them (source verifying, plane tickets, journal space etc) are moral decisions from which the profession cannot and should not escape. Examples of stories that should be told but are not told are numerous. Arijit Sen of the Reuters Institute at the University of Oxford drew light to the conflict in Nagaland in northeastern India in which 1000 people die yearly and have been doing so for the past 60 years, but reporting on this conflict is nonexistent compared to Kashmir.

The issue of money exerting control over the stories told came up briefly in the context of the financial hit that some news stations in the USA took when trying to report more critically on the (at that time) new war in Iraq. What the people wanted to hear was not a critique of their government’s decision and the horrors of war, but a one-sided story that justified it and made them feel secure. Interestingly however, some journalists at the conference argued that the responsibility lies with the readers to demand the critical stories, to demand the ethically important news. If this were to happen, then it sure would make it practically easier for the media to cover ethically important stories in a critical and balance way, but I cannot see how the existence or non-existence of a market for these stories makes one wit of difference about whether the media should cover them. analogously, coffee growers and shoe-factory workers should be paid a living wage and work in safe conditions regardless about whether there is a market for fair trade coffee or sweat-shop-free shoes. The existence of a market sure makes it easier for coffee and shoe companies to act morally, but its absence does not mean that the moral duty ceases to exist.

It is certainly true, however, that journalism is a business and without making money, NO news will be covered. So in order to maximize the number of stories told that should be told, a company can’t tell only stories that will not make money. The question, then, is how strong is this responsibility when weighed against money? Does the press have the responsibility to make only enough money to stay afloat?
So in light of the normative choices of resource allocation and the difficulties of creating a “clear lens,” it seems unlikely that journalism can objectively claim to be “amoral.” And if this is the case, isn’t an emphasis on the impartial objectivity of journalism as anything other than and ideal misleading and, potentially, damaging? A young man I shared coffee with at the conference made the reasonable suggestion that it would be a great step if journalism would cast off the false guise of the ideal be clearer about where it is coming from; then people could interpret the stories with the proper weight.
But if the ideal remains an ideal, and the media is necessarily biased in some way, wouldn’t a bias towards peace building and conflict resolution be a decent bias to choose?

 

Read More

Round Table Discussion

The first Objective Journalism Initiative Round Table Discussion will be held October 22nd in Studio 122 of the Preforming Arts Center of Texas A&M Commerce. All students, faculty, and staff are invited to attend this live recording experience. 

During the discussion viewers will be exposed to different opinions on objectivity and bias in news media coverage.  Additionally, students from Texas A&M Commerce will discuss how certain media outlets from around the globe cover the United States presidential election.  

To learn more about Objective Journalism Click Here

Read More