Objectivity and other Impossible Endeavors

Meg Omecene

@megomecene

mo403411@ohio.edu

We all have bias. A project I did in high school sought to illuminate that bias.

For me, I found that I had a weak spot for environmental issues. I found it very difficult to criticize religious leaders. I found my weak spots -- and man, there were a lot of them. Everything from loving stories about babies, to being terrified at the sight of a gun plagued me as I tried to write my report.

And while I try to patch up the weak spots, the older I get, the stronger I find that my bias grows. For example, this summer I spent about six weeks in Israel. They were the best 39 days of my life, but now I have major bias about that section of the world. Before, I was very “Rah rah rah yay Israel,” and to an extent, I still am, but now I see the validity in the Palestinians plight. While I have a weak spot for my fellow students who had to live their lives in fear for so long because of terrorist attacks on their schools and bus routes, I also saw how painfully the Palestinians suffered from being constantly hounded by Israeli military, and I could not, in good conscience, ever condemn or praise one side over the other ever again.

Another large bias that I have is toward the Democratic party. When I was younger, I referenced the Affordable Care Act in conversation with my mother by using the term Obamacare. She corrected me: “That’s what ignorant people call it.”

I did not understand her reasoning; if something were called “Megcare,” I would be all for it. I think it is important to care for one another, and so does out president.

Obama’s spin masters saw this advantage. After a couple of years of shrinking from the term Obamacare, president Obama acknowledged the term during a presidential debate against challenger Mitt Romney. “Obama cares!” he exclaimed.

(Video courtesy CNN)

I think that the "Rethinking Objectivity" article brings up a good point. While journalists strive to have some sort of magic objectivity, that is often an impossibility. Like the article says, some writers do not even vote for fear of bias creeping into their work.

However, is that the most effective way to try to be a good journalist? Everything that we read tells us there is no such things as Truth (with a capital T). Should a journalist bypass one of the greatest American principles to try to find this elusive, or possibly non-existent, quality?

I think journalists should try to eliminate their most weighted bias as much as they possibly can, but they should also acknowledge that they are human. Just because I am voting for Obama does not mean that I will not criticize him for his inconsistencies, nor does it mean I will not praise Mitt Romney for his strong moral fiber.

3 Basic Rules for Being Ethical

Alexandra Newman
an077811@ohio.edu

I think being objective is a very important part of being a journalist. It’s one of the first things you learn. It’s a good skill to have to make your stories stronger. The conflict comes in when you’re not sure what to call something, or you’re not sure if you should report something because it is so scandalous.

An example that comes up often is whether or not to call the Affordable Care Act “Obamacare." I have written several stories in which I talk about the Affordable Care Act. I start out by saying, “The Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.” Then I continue to call it Obamacare throughout my story.

I made this ethical decision because I felt like most Americans just know it as Obamacare, and it is easier to say over and over again in a story than the Affordable Care Act. I didn’t think I was adding any bias at the time. After reading this article about weather or not to call it Obamacare, I realized that maybe the use of it makes it seem like you have an opposition to it. I actually don’t, and find it funny that I still find myself using the term just because it is easier.

Just because something is easier, does it make it the right thing to do? I am all for taking the easy route, but in a news story you’re not always getting your strongest story out there. You can make up quotes from people who don’t exist, you can Google something until you find the information instead of calling someone who would know the answer off hand, and you can even make up false details to add more to your story, but all those things are wrong to do and unethical. They may be easier than going out and finding the answer yourself, but when you’re a journalist you are trusted by many to report in the best way you can.

I think being objective comes into this idea of doing stuff the easy way. When you’re doing things fast and just throwing a story together you tend to only include a bare minimum of details. If you took some time to look into the story and spend more time finding all of the sides of the story you may find that there is an angle you would have missed it you didn’t take the time to look into the case fully. 

Here is an example of a reporter who made comments quickly, without having actual proof to back them up.

In this case he lost his job over the things he said. He wasn't informed enough and jumped to conclusions based on his opinions, not actual facts. So before sitting down to write a story, or put a package together for television, make sure you:

1. Have every side to the story possible.
2. Don't let your opinions intrude.
3. Don't take the easy route.

Please take these things into consideration during your journalistic career. I do.