On the other hand, objectivity is killing journalism.

Daniel Froomkin, who blogged until earlier this year for the Washington Post and now is at Huffington Post, lays into to the bankrupt notion of "objective journalism" in an Economist interview:

Journalists should strive for accuracy, and fairness. Objectivity is impossible, and is too often confused with balance. And the problem with balance is that we are not living in a balanced time. For instance, is it patently obvious that at this point in our history, the leading luminaries on one side of the American political spectrum are considerably less tethered to reality than those on the other side. Madly trying to split the difference, as so many of my mainstream-media colleagues feel impelled to do, does a disservice to the concept of the truth.

Charles Krauthammer, for instance, is mad as a hatter. (An irony of sorts, since the McGill grad is a trained psychiatrist.) It's therefore imperative, in assembling a talking-heads panel, to include among those who are "tethered to reality" at least one individual who isn't. Which would be George Will (the Soviet Union will last forever), Michael Gerson (Bush's longtime head speechwriter), Krauthammer or any of the other neo-con status-quo upholders occupying perches at the "liberal" Washington Post. Froomkin managed to get fired from WaPo, after years of being one of the paper's most-read columnists - actually, among any U.S. paper's most-read columnists - which makes me worry about the job security of the paltry WaPo offering of moderates (the first-class E.J. Dionne, for instance).

But more to the point, on objectivity. Everything journalists do, and ever have done, is subjective. Do you run the Fort Hood tragedy above or below the fold? Do you even put it on the front page? Is it a "massacre" (a term we use too easily) or a "killing spree" (arguably sensationalist). Do we report the miserable U.S. jobs figures that came out the same day as good or bad news? (The jobless rate rose into double digits, but Obama and economists have been predicting that all year. The rate of job loss in this latest period is comfortingly lower than in previous months - meaning the trend is in the right direction.)

What stories we decide to cover, whom we choose to interview, the length and placement of stories in a paper or broadcast line-up, whether stories are accompanied by photographs or video reports from the scene, these all are subjective judgments that skew the story.

As to "getting both sides of the story," sometimes there's only one side. Pedophilia is bad. So that's a rare instance where we don't chase after some university prof who will defend it. But in reporting on French healthcare - if we decide to do so in the first place, a subjective judgment - though our reporting shows the French experience accord with France's ranking by most world health organizations as the best in the world (the U.S. ranks around 37th in most), we must find "experts" to provide the other side. Namely, that it's costly. Well yes, you get what you pay for. On torture, we must find someone to argue for it to accompany the chorus of the correctly appalled. These addled voices speaking for a malignant "other side of the story" greatly dilute the truth of matters.

Sometimes things are just right, or wrong, and we should say only that. And say it over and over again until the powers that be make a good thing the new normal and eradicate a bad thing from our midst. In the MSM, there is still some question about the wisdom about going to war in Iraq, an unqualified disaster that ranks among the worst foreign policy initiatives in U.S. history, Southeast Asia included. There's no honest argument to be had on this, only sophistry. A Republican House tried to block the banks bailout late last year, which would have tumbled us into a global depression. G.O.P. members of Congress were acting either out of partisanship, at the expense of sound policy and the public good, or were ignorant of basic economics. Again, there's no "other side" to this.

Some things are true - gravity, water finding its lowest level, Michael Jackson was weird. In reporting and commenting on crucial public-policy questions, we only muddle things by ensuring that cranks also are heard from. Our on-the-one-hand-on-the-other "objectivity" also coincides with the decline in audience for both print and TV network news. Fairness of course we strive for. Doing no harm, also. But objectivity not only is often bad journalism but lousy for business.  

 

 

Comments

[D. Carr]

I can only surmise that any pro conservative comments all come from "cranks" since the Star only prints a "token" pro conservative comment in their letters to the editor. It would also appear that all Conservative policies are :just plain wrong since it is a rare day that any Conservative policies garner positive editorial or columnists reviews.

It is for this reason that I finally (after 23 years) cancelled my subscription to the Star. It seems that the only way I can obtain "balanced" news is to view news from various sources on line. This is not to save money, but rather to obtain "balanced" reporting instead of the reading what is decreed to be "right" in the view of the Star.

I should note that it is interesting how screaming headlines that are subsequently disprove have the correction printed on under some non descript article buried back on page 57.

It is unfortunate that this once great paper has descended to a rag that could and should be renamed the "Liberal Daily Mouthpiece"

I would have sent this to the letter to the editor but it would never get published, the Star is incapable of publishing balanced letters along with it's biased reporting.

[Concerned]

D. Carr's extremist comment verifies the points columnist David Olive makes. (The presence of columnists Angelo Persichelli and the BILD President disprove Carr's thesis.) If I could add: the modern-day Republicans and Conservatives in power are distinct from their respective parties past and instead find a historical parallel in any hate-spewing, fellow-citizen-bashing totalitarian regime. To them, differing views are to be beaten down, not civilly debated. People with differing views are to be attacked personally, and their character sullied as it is the only way to uphold their fatally flawed economic and social beliefs. Remember Harper's "I have tapes on you" response to a challenge on a political point by Ignatieff? The Liberals in recent years have also bought into this type of "rule". Ontario laws allow the police to push a button and wreck someone's life. The provincial gov't also gives subsidies and favourable legislation to the largest businesses able to contribute $$$ to political campaigns, and turns its head when these behemoth businesses put small business out of business. I could go on and on, but one would do well to read Germany's history from about 1928-1944. Breaking (admittedly too powerful) unions and leaving the population with no labour voice, carrying on massive social propoganda campaigns goading people on to be aggressive, taking away money from the pockets of the average citizen and instead handing over gov't money as a "favour" from the reigning political party, allowing behemoth industries to effectively rule society and providing them with practically free and abusable labour - the parallels are numerous to Canada's present day realities. I find especially interesting that wealthy North American industrialists have struck up the same relationship with Swiss banks as the Nazi Socialist party did prior to WWII. Hitler fleeced wealthy Jews and other socially scapegoated citizens and a minion developed new accounting practices in order to funnel the money quickly into secret Swiss bank accounts. They used this money to buy raw materials from huge industrialists to make tools of war. Last year there were some articles stating that Our wealthiest North American industrialists were socking away money in Swiss bank accounts (which of course is destabilizing to the country losing the currency). I really have to wonder - when Bush and Harper cut taxes to the largest companies and wealthiest families, how is the war in Afghanistan being financed? Is the point of the war to make the rich richer? 20 years ago, this would be a conspiracy theory. Today I believe it's a fair question.