Subjectivity is not the issue

By Jaelynn Grisso

jg764811@ohio.edu

At the age of 12, I knew I wanted to be a journalist. I wanted to write, I wanted to inform and I wanted to tell stories that made a difference. At the age of 16, I started working as a journalist. I was only an intern, and the paper I worked for only serviced the small town of Glendive, Mont., but I was taking those first steps toward becoming a journalist. And a large step to take involved ethics, specifically journalism ethics. My mentor taught me about classic journalism ethics, and the concepts have been ingrained into my life ever since.

Maybe it is for this reason, or maybe it is for a more fundamental lack of collect conscience in journalists, it is frustrating when it becomes even just an inquiry as to why it might be an issue for a reporters to become too close to their sources. What is even more concerning is that not only are journalism students debating these basic ethically issues, but so are professional journalists. Many see no issue with becoming friends with sources, and allowing those sources to wine and dine them.

However, as with any ethical issue, it is not nearly as black-and-white as I may like for it to be. For the typical, traditional journalist, these ethics still apply (although, even that point has been contested). The shades of gray begin to appear when the conversation shifts to less traditional journalists, such as critics and opinion columnists.

In a column from SF Gate by Derk Richardson, Richardson discussed the ethical issues of music journalism. After explaining how several in the business currently receive handouts from sources and publicists with no qualms about it, he continued on to pose an interesting question.

“But is there really anything other than subjective criticism?” he asked.

No; there’s not. Criticism, by nature, is subjective, and is required to be so because it involves one party finding fault with another and explaining those. But, in order to have fault, the two parties must have differing opinions about what constitutes being wrong.

The issue arises, however, in the fact that this question was posed in this context at all. Whether or not criticism is subjective is moot. What matters is if the journalist can maintain the ability to be critical. Columnists and critics do not lost their journalistic ethics merely because they are subjective. 

But when these journalists (because they are indeed journalists) can no longer gather information, present their opinion based on fact and effectively provide fair and open criticism, then the entire business should be concerned.

Questions concerning how involved a journalist should become with a source should no longer be raised. Sources should remain to be just that, a source of information. Allowing the lines to blur between a source and a friend only inhibits the ability to be critical, in need be, and fosters distrust among readers or viewer. The issue is more than a conflict of interest. It’s a conflict of integrity.