Who let the dogs out?

Dani Dean

dd929212@ohio.edu

When the idea of objectivity dominates the world of journalism, does it diminish the idea of a watchdog? It seems that in the past there were a lot more cases of the watchdog journalist breaking a story that held an organization accountable for their corrupt actions. There were watchdog journalists who were not afraid to dive into a story they had a hunch for. These journalists brought justice to corruption.

But this is a dying breed.

The Council of newspaper publishers and editors said watchdog journalism is “journalism that gives power to the people.” In society today many journalists do not seem to be pushing to be the first that will over turn the next rock. The concept of a “free press” is a journalists ability to hold the government accountable for their actions. In order to hold a large, powerful government accountable a journalist needs to analyze aggressively and thoroughly explain all of their findings. It is no walk in the park to be a watchdog. It takes fact-checking statements of public officials,  interviewing public figures with challenging questions, beat reporting to gather information from meetings and overall information-gathering on a singular story for a long period of time. Passivity cannot be in a watchdog journalist’s vocabulary.

I believe the domination of objectivity is to blame for making journalists more passive. Of course objectivity is important in writing, but that does not mean a journalist should simply take any and every piece of skeptical information given to them. There is a hybrid breed of journalism that can exists. One that combines objectivity and challenging the information the government hands out. Since so many journalists cling to being objective, fair and balanced they are not challenging and foreshadowing events. If journalists are so extremely devoted to objectivity, what is so wrong with subjectivity?

A little personal opinion never killed nobody.

Subjectivity is “writing based on personal opinions, interpretations, points of view, emotions and judgments.” Watchdog journalism does not make it subjective. It means following an intuition. Yes the initial intuition may be based off personal opinion, but after a journalist dives into the subject and finds evidence to back up their claim it is no longer subjective. What starts out as a subjective instinct can transform into an objective story that is the next Watergate.

I believe ambition and enthusiasm are the keys to great journalism. Watchdog journalism is all about being ambitious in all different types of coverage: politics, sports, entertainment, local news, etc.

Watchdog journalism is how we learn and how new information is unleashed to the public. I do not see anything about that making it subjective. s