How objectivity has changed in 2020

Keri Johnson

kj153517@ohio.edu

As we can see on the notorious Media Bias Chart (below) that makes rounds on the internet every year -- especially during election cycles--it seems that even what is marketed as "fair" and "balanced" journalism is far from it, and sometimes, even radically political.

Picture source: https://www.adfontesmedia.com/

 

Many publications this summer were blatantly political; and some even traditionally endorse political candidates, such as the New Yorker and the New York Times endorsing Hillary Clinton for president in 2016. Some publications found that, while not endorsing or making a political statement, that reevaluating what objectivity means to them, in itself is political. 

First, objectivity must be defined. According to Merriam-Webster, objectivity is the quality of being objective; "the lack of favor toward one side or another." One such publication that published a piece over redefining objectivity this summer was NPR. In a piece titled "The Debate Over Objectivity in Journalism," the first sentence states: "Black Lives Matter." 

Everyone has biases; it is a fact. Some people should not cover stories that interfere directly with their personal lives. But, for some, this gives them reason to cover these stories. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette infamously barred a Black reporter from covering racial protests in fear that they would be "too biased." 

Objectivity can be dangerous in that it is passive absorption of news, the Columbia Review of Journalism said in 2003.  Journalists are people first, which means not only do they report the news, they also read it. Though as objective as one might try to be, it doesn't mean they are completely able. 

The Columbia Review writes about the origins of the Iraq War following 9/11. The Review writes that no one challenged President Bush's statements at a press conference, despite the fact that he had no evidence to back up his claims. Here, the silent journalists were perhaps thinking of themselves as "objective." Hearing a viewpoint and regurgitating it without proof does nothing to serve the greater good -- which is what journalism is for.

Journalists are in society to report on it, and expose it. The role of journalism in democracy is to hold those in power accountable. Objectivity can be dangerous in this sense -- because providing fair comment, to those in power who are not telling the truth, is not a critical way to report. 

I think that it is noteworthy that in the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics, the word objectivity is not used once. Instead, it states: "Seek truth and report it."