Objectivity: What is it good for?

Catherine McKelvey
cm146709@ohio.edu

It seems as if journalists fall somewhere between a rock and a hard place as far as the issue of objectivity is concerned. In a world so concerned with a constant stream of media information, it becomes increasingly difficult for journalists to decipher all the "he saids" from all the "she saids," as they are more and more plentiful with each passing day. This fact, alongside others, makes reaching the goal of objectivity that much more of a conundrum.  

With ever-pressing deadlines, obtaining total objectivity seems relatively easy.  In fact, that's the reason Brent Cunningham, author of Re-Thinking Objectivity, said, "Objectivity excuses lazy reporting."  Yes, it is true that as journalists we should always strive to present all sides of every story in an unbiased manner,  allowing the audience to form opinions and choose partial sides on their own.  But is he right?  Do we use objectivity as an excuse for laziness and meeting our deadlines?

We are not to implement our opinions into stories for fear of escaping objectivity and fairness, yet when we do just that, we are accused of being lazy.  So, we're either too opinionated and not objective enough or lazy robots merely meeting our deadlines.  It's times like these when objectivity becomes quite the double-edged sword.  Or has objectivity become obsolete?

For example, it is interesting to consider the case of the ambiguous and seemingly interchangeable (but, not really) terms Obamacare and the Affordable Care Act.  Originally, the health care law was named the Affordable Care Act.  It seems as if, later, the name of the health care law was nick named Obamacare.

In the beginning, event the president himself used the term interchangeably with the law's actual name.  Until, that is of course, the term Obamacare became the term used by journalists and politicians who viewed the health care law in a negative light.

President Obama even commented that individuals would surely return to using the term in a positive manner when the point in time arrived in which the law was running efficiently and working correctly.

It is intriguing to see, however, the amount of stories that refer to the health care law as Obamacare and are portraying it in a negative light.  In fact, it seems as if the term has evolved into a largely criticized and scrutinized aspect of President Obama's term. Oh, and did I mention, liberals and conservatives alike are jumping on board!

Political Cartoon courtesy of William A. Jacobson

As journalists, should we use such loaded and emotionally associated terms?  In my opinion, the use of the term Obamacare only serves the purpose of fueling a negative fire.  It is proper and correct to use the original title of the health care law, not it's nickname. Readers and audiences are becoming increasingly confused on the manner, and the media's coverage of the law has much to do with that fact. 

We need to always remain consistent, and I think this angle is crucial across the board.  In a case like this, it is necessary for media outlets to arrive at a uniform conclusion as far as which term to use when speaking of the health care law, the Affordable Care Act.

 

 Jimmy Kimmel polls random Americans in Hollywood, CA.

Asks them which they prefer:  Obamacare or the Affordable Care Act?

Answers will shock you. 

Video courtesy of Jimmy Kimmel Live.