|
Created
by EJ Belcher
Last updated
December 2003
In
the Real World:
http://www.imdb.com
applying
objectivity in journalism
The Project
for Excellence in Journalism offers a fresh perspective on the problem
of objectivity in the media, simply by back-tracking through history of
the profession. “The Lost Meaning of Objectivity” mentions “realism”
– a notion that developed during the latter part of the nineteenth century
– that basically said if journalists strung facts together, that the truth
would reveal itself. It states:
When the concept originally evolved, it was not meant to imply that
journalists were free of bias. Quite the contrary. The term
began to appear
as part of journalism after the turn of the century, particularly in the
1920s,
out of a growing recognition that journalists
were full of bias, often
unconsciously. Objectivity called for journalists to develop a consistent
method of testing information
– a transparent approach to evidence –
precisely so that personal and cultural biases would not undermine the
accuracy of their work. (1)
It is easy for journalists'
objectivity to be compromised, simply because they are human, looking at
a story from a particular angle, and choosing what quotes to either include
or omit from their story. Because everything that a reporter writes
is based on his or her fact-supported point of view, one could argue that
objectivity in its purest sense does not exist in this profession.
“The Writing Center
Guide to Writing about Film” offers some interesting points on a more subjective
branch of journalism. Film critics are notorious for basing a review
solely on their personal opinion, but they still back themselves up by
citing examples from the film that birthed that point of view in the first
place. For student film reviewers, the George Mason University Writing
Center handout offers these questions for help on attempting a critique:
1. What is the relationship between the film and its title? 2. How
is the plot
constructed? 3. What is the relation between story-time
and discourse
(film)-time? 4. Do the main characters develop during the course
of the film?
5. What is the function of the
setting and décor (location, sets, props,
costumes)? 6. How do the point of view (omniscient, limited, reliable,
consistent) and the
cinematic/visual style complement each other? (1-2)
Thinking about these
elements of film may help reviewers to look at multiple aspects and give
a more objective critique, instead of simply saying what was good and bad.
The handout goes on to recommend viewing the movie more than once, if possible,
to reanalyze parts and not simply write down initial reactions.
Native American journalist
Gordon Regguinti also addresses this question in “Writing
for Seven Generations Hence”:
Even with the journalistic rules of fair and accurate reporting, clear,
concise,
complete and timely writing, all you really find is a myriad
of subjective
decisions. Whom we choose to interview is a subjective decision.
Just as
important, whom we don’t interview.
What becomes the lead paragraph in a
story is subjective. What photographs are used. Someone has
to make a
decision as to what makes a news story in the first place. (2)
Regguinti never claims
that he is unbiased and quite openly believes that there is in fact no
such thing as objective journalism.
Deni Elliot, on the
other hand, views a certain amount of subjectivity as a good thing in her
speech, “The Death of Objective Reporting.” In his article “A New
View of Objectivity: Taking a Side,” M.L. Stein quotes Elliot as
saying, “Instead of objectivity, which forces reporters to be the mouthpieces
of the powerful, citizens need journalistic perspective” (2). She
goes on to claim that as long as the basic facts are in place to provide
a foundation, journalists should not be so paranoid with remaining unbiased
that they forget to make their piece an enjoyable read.
Ethnography
|