Tipping the Scales of Objectivity

Anna Lippincott

al859011@ohio.edu

In journalism, there are always overriding questions of objectivity and journalists’ positions on issues. Two specific areas in which journalists face scrutiny are the press times of certain issues and the way issues are framed. 

Press time and media coverage of an issue is very controversial because it can make journalists appear in favor of a certain issue. If a news outlet covers the gay marriage debate for ten straight days, with ten straight days of front-page stories, the outlet will look favorable of the issue because of its extensive coverage. Why is gay marriage getting so much coverage as opposed to religious defense getting that coverage? The problem in this situation is that if the issue is newsworthy and people are talking about the particular issue then it is a paper or station’s duty to report on it. If there are riots for days due to a recent Supreme Court decision, that is newsworthy. If a paper chooses a random week in October to observe nationwide support of gay marriage, its objectivity begins to look questionable. The goal of a news source should be to give equal attention to both sides, with the exception if something extraordinary happens from one side. Even in an article highlighting the opinion of one side of a debate, it is important to contact and get quotes from the defense. I remember speaking to the editor from the Ohio University student paper The Post in 2012 during the presidential election season. He said he had received calls from Republicans, complaining that The Post covered the Democratic side too much. He received an equal number of calls from Democrats, claiming the paper covered Republicans too much. He said that is when he knew they were doing a good job.

In addition to the coverage of an issue, media sources needs to very cautiously examine how they frame issues. The wording and phrases they associate with a particular issue can very easily give the media a biased reputation. In politics, issues have certain names for a reason. Left and right-sided interest groups associate controversial issues with names that unconsciously sway public opinion, like Obamacare and Defense of Marriage (created by rightists) versus Affordable Care Act and Marriage Equality (created by leftists). The titles of many governmental institutions are named in a tricky manner, where the best thing a news source can do is name them properly and in their legal sense, for example Affordable Care Act as opposed to Obamacare. Still, the problem exists. Even if the media is referring to an institution by its proper name, the name is loaded based on the side that created it. Right-winged Americans will see a problem with the reinforcement of “Affordable Care Act” and “Marriage Equality.”

Image via Chicago Tribune

Image via eurweb.com

It is virtually impossible to make everyone happy in media coverage of an issue, but it is not necessarily about making everyone happy. The duty of a publication is to be honest with readers and express the truth in the most pure of forms. If that makes a side unhappy, so be it. They will be on the opposite side of the spectrum soon enough. Journalism on the political and controversial side is a balancing act. The scales are in place, it is just important to never make them tip too far, too often.