Objectivity vs. Transparency
Which is better? To know the information you are getting is completely unbiased, or to know about the biases the information contains, and how it was obtained, when you receive it.
That’s the discussion I had with Micheal Foley and a few others during Monday’s #journchat. For the purposes of our discussion and this blog post, we’re discussing news reporting.
I’m of the mindset that in Utopialand, all news reporting would be completely objective and unbiased. Realizing that we don’t live there, I still believe being as objective as possible is the best route to go.
Michael is of the opposite opinion. He’d rather know EVERYTHING about that report. How the information was obtained, the history of the reporter and interview subject, not to mention the opinion of the editor or director that originally thought of the story. He argues that only with every single piece of relevant information about the story, its subjects, and its writers, can you truly get the full picture.
I don’t feel that way. I think if you are (trying) to be objective, you’ll end up being transparent. Being objective in a situation that you have an opinion about is maybe the most difficult thing a journalist can do. If they can do it well, and I (perhaps naively) believe there are reporters out there who want to be objective. Being objective means all of the relevant information is presented in an unflinching light. The good, the bad, the ugly are all present in the story.
No matter what the personal opinions of the reporter or subjects of the story, or editors or news directors, if all the information is reported in the story, and no details that could slant the story one way or the other are left out, you’re being truly objective…and transparent at the same time.
So maybe the lesson in all of this is in the end, if you’re being truly objective, you’re being truly transparent.
Let me have it in the comments.
EDIT NOTE: I spelled Micheal’s name incorrectly earlier. I’ve now corrected it. May my mistake live on in infamy.
This is a tough one, Matt.
I think I fall under Michael’s belief that it is important to know the origins of how the information was gathered, background on the interview subjects, etc. Objectivity, while ideal, is extremely hard to come by because we’re all humans, and we all have our own beliefs. Trying to prevent those beliefs from seeping into a story is very difficult.
The objective journalist should do their best to represent a fair story. But if it’s a story in The New York Times, my mind is going to go straight to the fact that this is a left-leaning newspaper and therefore, this story is probably going to sympathize with the left. I think that since readers have preset opinions about news outlets before reading them plays into the belief of there being less objectivity in the media these days.
This makes me wonder: should newspapers get rid of their op-ed sections? Are these sections the reasons that newspapers like The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal are seen as being subjective left and right publications? If these sections were removed, would objectivity be more prevalent in the news stories?
Fun debate, Matt. I always enjoy talking about this topic.
Cheers,
Rich
Thanks for the comment Rich!
That’s a very good point that I didn’t think about. The reputation of the publication or broadcast entity printing or airing the report definitely makes a difference.
As I said in the post, in the end, I think they work more hand in hand than being one or the other. All of one and none of the other, at least in my opinion, doesn’t end up working. Transparency without context is a bunch of meaningless facts to me. However, complete objectivity without knowing where the information came from is troublesome as well, even if all the information is present.
As for newspapers getting rid of op-ed sections, I don’t think getting rid of them would have a huge affect on their reputations. People see bias if anything disagrees with their opinion in a publication…even if it is pure fact.
Is it really one versus the other? I think transparency helps objectivity. As total objectivity is impossible, disclosing connections and biases related to what is being reported gives the audience the power to judge the usefulness, credibility and relevance of the information.
Thanks Sergio!
I think you’re probably right. One without the other is pretty much useless.
Hi there!
Thanks for mentioning me and my point of view (I’m Micheal).
My ideas aren’t new. David Weinberger brought up this subject last year: http://bit.ly/aYqKSc | http://bit.ly/dpX1se
One of the reasons I prefer transparency over objectivity is because any reasonably intelligent, well-informed person should have an opinion on any important issue. Journalists are usually the most intelligent and best-informed people on their beats’ subject matter. For journalists to hide their opinions and only serve up an objective story does the readership a misdeed. Their opinions should be sought out and valued, not hidden from us.
Furthermore, it is impossible to be truly objective without just parroting facts absent of perspective. A robot can do that, but humans can’t. People want to read stories, not fact sheets.
While it is impossible for humans to report news without bias, it is possible for them to be transparent about who they are, what their beliefs are, how they gathered the information, etc.
The first thing I do when I read anything in the news is ask myself, “where is this writer coming from?” If I can’t find out, then I can’t trust them.
Fun debate, indeed!
@Matt: I believe the news you get is never unbiased. As Sergio and Rich point out, true objectivity is difficult/impossible because we’re all emotional creatures. Even if the writer is objective, the reader isn’t.If we trust the story’s source, we’ll almost always trust the story. Conversely, it’s almost impossible to be persuaded by (or say “you’re right” to) someone you don’t like or trust.
One of my journalism profs, who blogs on media and politics at http://jmcpherson.wordpress.com/, told me you know your story’s objective when both sides call in and complain that the story favors the other side
@Mike: I don’t think all of that info is necessary (though it would be nice). We just need to consume the news with a grain of salt. Unfortunately, so few people have learned *how* to think, rather than *what* to think. Courses in logic are elective. Even some of the best-educated people in this country can still be pretty easily duped. We should be learning about the structure of logical thought as children.
I guess that my biggest problem with transparency is that the same facts that you crave about the editor and reporter will influence your viewpoint on the story, and will alter your objectivity over the facts they’ve presented.
If you argue otherwise, then you actually support the concept of objectivity, that you can weigh the facts of the story against the biographical information of its creators and methods used to gather it.
If you agree that these facts would influence you, then I ask where this transparency should end? Should we also know what they were eating and drinking (hope caffeine didn’t make the mind wander, or maybe that vegan diet left a chemical imbalance)? Should we have recordings of all conversations between the editor and reporter, raw interviews, photo outtakes, casual conversations with significant others?
Many leads come from confidential sources, only substantiated after thorough investigations. Would the informant have to be part of this transparency?
Most interview subjects don’t know the entire scope of the story when being interviewed, because most discussions center around a very specific aspect of the investigation, rather than an over-arching commentary on the entire project. If they didn’t even know what they were a part of, then knowing their background serves no purpose.
I just prefer to let the facts speak for themselves. Any good investigation includes a copy of the raw documents used. If I disagree with the story, I can look myself.