Balance, Neutrality, and Objectivity in the Midst of a National Movement

Rhyann Green
rg156417@ohio.edu

 

 
In the months following George Floyd's death, demonstrations have held a consistent presence in the daily news. Across the nation, journalists are documenting cries for justice, demands to hold police accountable, and appeals for government officials to implement better policies.

With coverage of these issues, the concept of balance is often called into question: what about the other side?

In "The Elements of Journalism," Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel write that balance can be "so limited it often distort[s] the truth."

In the past, the effort to produce balanced stories that speak to both sides has at times not only been unhelpful, but harmful. In 2016, Mother Jones profiled white supremacist Richard Spencer. The article described Spencer as aiming "to make racism cool again." Weeks later, Spencer gave a speech to celebrate Trump's presidential victory and was received with Nazi salutes. In January 2017, Spencer was gaining thousands of followers a week on his Twitter account. Twitter did not remove Spencer's verification until November of that year.

Source: Patrick Behn

 

The year 2016 was not the first time that journalists ran into issues giving voice to hateful ideologies. Nearly a hundred years prior, in 1921, New York World runs a front-page story about the Ku Klux Klan for three weeks. In a 2018 interview conducted by The Guardian, historian Felix Harcourt explains how the Klan used negative coverage to its advantage.

"[W]hile the World picks up 100,000 readers, the Klan’s gain is in the hundreds of thousands of new members – reportedly even cutting out membership applications from the New York World stories to join this organization they were just now hearing about," Harcourt said.

Not every story needs the other side to be complete. Not every side needs a platform in the news.

Without the concept of balance to strive for, some journalists may be quick to look at neutrality as a universal value to guide us when producing news. Yet, neutrality can not be the solution for every ethical decision we may encounter in the newsroom.

In the same interview, Harcourt states the Klan would pour advertising dollars into newspapers during the 1920s who remained neutral in their coverage. By refusing to endorse or denounce the Klan, many popular dailies at the time (written primarily by white journalists) avoided the potential for a change in readership. Harcourt says the result of this was presenting the Klan as "normalized and sanitized."

Neutrality does not guarantee our reporting to be free from bias.

If not relying on neutrality or balance, some journalists may use the goal of objectivity to navigate choices they will face when reporting. However, the definition of objectivity in journalism is hard to pinpoint. In practice, it can be even harder to narrow down what objectivity looks like. Some journalists debate whether or not objectivity exists and if it is possible for us to achieve. At the ISOJ 2020 Keynote, Tom Rosenstiel argues that objectivity begins with subjectivity, but it does not end there.

Journalists are able to produce their best work once they have an understanding of their own perspective. This is the only way that we can move forward and begin to incorporate other viewpoints. By being able to comprehend the way other people think and experience the world around us, we become not only greater journalists but greater citizens.

Source: Kelly Lacy

What does this mean for journalists covering the ongoing Black Lives Matter movement?

First, white journalists must recognize the option to stay neutral on this issue is a privilege. A privilege many Black, Indigenous, and other journalists of color do not have. Second, it should not be considered a lapse in objectivity to condemn the actions of the police. Third, we must listen to Black journalists in our newsrooms, and refrain from speaking over them. We must learn to be better allies moving forward. Finally, we must share the understanding that if we rely solely on the concepts of balance, neutrality, and objectivity alone when reporting, we will inevitably run into potentially harmful shortcomings.

Simplifying the goal of journalism or journalism ethics to one word is negligent. The ethical decisions we make every day require nuance and diligence. We will make mistakes. Correcting errors is part of our jobs as journalists. At the same time, we must take care to learn from those mistakes. We can do better. Now, more than ever, we need to do better.