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.

Duty to the Truth: A College Junior's Ramblings on Ethical Journalism

Amanda Hagley
ah725510@ohio.edu

A Bigger Picture

Photo courtesy of Whitehouser.com

Want to find a lack or freedom, a lack of democracy?  Look to places where the media is suppressed or overly monitored. Is it fair to say that information from the media creates democracy?  Maybe not, but I can tell you this:  The amount of information the world has readily accessible today sure does hold people accountable for their actions, whole countries and their governments included.  The days of powerful political figures reining terror for months on end without word reaching across oceans until far too late in the game are over.  With current technology and journalists hungry for the truth, nothing can get past the media and the public's hunger for information.

From the beginning, journalism has existed to inform the people and to bring them together; the more democratic the kingdom/city/region/what have you, the more information was shared.  Journalists have (almost) always been used to spread information and keep the public in the know with hard facts and data, so why does it seem that the tides are turning in regards to the priorities of journalists?

Vested Interests

With the decline of the physical newspapers looking like it's here to stay, media outlets need to find ways to keep their doors open and keep the information rolling; but is the need to make a profit interfering with the core values of journalism?  When did income take precedent over finding the truth and having a responsibility to the public, to keeping us free?  Journalism is a career based on character, on trust and on conscience.

 As journalists, we have the power of persuasion.  We can pick what makes it to the public and in which light they get to see it.  If we have morally unsound "professionals" roaming around the newsroom, the trust instilled in us by the public will only continue to deteriorate.  Need more of a description about what's happening to the public trust and why? Check out this interview with Darrell West, an American author, political scientist, and political commentator.

What's the Solution?

Just because things are changing, it doesn't mean that journalism is going anywhere. What needs to happen, mind you this is just the opinion of a lowly college student, is that we need to keep our priorities straight. What is news worth if it's overly commercialized and biased? People aren't going to stop caring about the truth just because it's delivered through a different medium now. What is important is that, as journalists, we stick with our morals, stick with the ethics that guide us, and continue to complete our duty to society; a duty to truth, a duty to democracy and a duty to the people who trust us.