Talk:Journalistic objectivity

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2020 and 18 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AmyLHodgson, Ckl46. Peer reviewers: Jordanamarinelli, Aaishwar.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lhalas.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

great changes + wishlist

I hesitate to edit the article, but I'd like the author to please explain/defend the use of the term "disinterestedness," which is a term used often in the study of art appreciation. Immanuel Kant explained the term as: "Where the question is whether something is beautiful, we do not want to know, whether we, or anyone else, are, or even could be, concerned in the real existence of the thing." This seems to me the exact opposite of journalistic objectivity (indeed, of journalism). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guytal2 (talk • contribs) 12:19, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I think this works much better as a separate entry and with the added discussion.

One thing though: The article is now missing a discussion of the idea of the "liberal media", in my opinion.

One reason I didn't go into more detail about critiques of media from the left is because I thought that to maintain 'neutrality' it would have to be accompanied by some discussion of media critiques from the right (ie, the "liberal media" critique from folks like Accuracy in Media and Bernard Goldberg--there are probably better examples to be found though), and I didn't feel able to represent that position without a little further reading and research.

Even though I don't personally believe in any such animal as a "liberal media" (although I certainly think the evidence indicates that journalists as individuals tend to lean left on social issues), the fact that so many people do see liberal bias in reporting is fairly important to recent developments in 'objective' journalism (for example, the rise of overtly partisan cable news, web journalism, talk radio).

It would be nice if someone were to fill that gap at some point.

--Birdmessenger 15:06, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also, I added a disclaimer that this discussion really only applies fully to US journalism, which has its own particular historical context.

Reference Please

"News stories of the period often described with detachment the hanging, immolation and mutilation of men, women and children by mobs. Under the regimen of objectivity, news writers often attempted to balance these accounts by recounting the alleged transgressions of the victims that provoked the lynch mobs to fury."

Can somebody provide some primary sources for this information? The author of this statement really should have cited an example.

Br0ken 07:10, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

"Journalistic objectivity is a considerable notion within the discussion of journalistic professionalism. Journalistic objectivity may refer to fairness, disinterestedness, factuality, and nonpartisanship, but most often encompasses all of these qualities. First evolving as a practice in the 18th century, a number of critiques and alternatives to the notion have emerged since, fuelling ongoing and dynamic discourse surrounding the ideal of objectivity in journalism." citation is needed here.

Advocacy and Liberalism Regarding Intro

First, "The Jungle" was a massively important (American!) piece of advocacy journalism. Modern pieces reflecting this spirit include "Enrique's Journey" published in the L.A. Times and written by Sonia Nazario. It's a sympathetic feature on Central Americans immigrating (illegally) to America. Or Washington Post's Anthony Shadid's pieces from an invaded Iraq in '03, highlighting the suffering of children and families in a wartime Baghdad. By investigating social strife and change, journalists inherently perform an advocacy role. It is implied that advocacy journalism is not an acceptable form of journalism in U.S.

Also, journalists are focused on what is new (news). Change is liberal, status-quo is conservative. Thus the percieved liberal tilt. Combined with the intrinsic role of advocate, journalists fill a rather liberal niche, and have done so since the U.S.'s inception. The freedom of journalists to print what they pleased was considered necessary, and was one reason for revolt (Stamp Tax and Zenger Trial). It is the purpose of a journalist to observe and record the events of an ever-changing world society.

Please signed your comment.

Definition section - cites

The "definitions" section near the start is well done, I think, but it really needs citations to major proponents of the different views it reports. It needs references. In particular, I am curious to see a reference to something advocating the idea that journalists should be NPOV. I've encountered that mostly as a trend resulting from a desire to avoid controversy, not as a journalistic philosophy that people stand behind. My impression is likely wrong, but this is exactly why we need references here. I am adding the template to say citations are needed. Rlitwin 14:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Hunter S. Thompson

Hunter S. Thompson is a fun read, but a serious journalist? I'm not sure I feel comfortable seeing references to him or to Gonzo Journalism. Isn't half the stuff he wrote about make-believe? This guy is like a Mark Twain figure who, informed by his journalistic background, made great social satire ... but not journalism. He may have tried to blur the lines some, but I can't think of one journalist I have ever known, met, worked with/for or been taught by who would have considered him as an actual journalist. Funny stories, though. I think he should be left off this article completely and the other journalism articles should not make Gonzo Journalism out to be some sort of legitimate branch or style of journalism, because as far as I know it is not and I've never met anyone practicing or academic who thinks it is. I could be wrong, but there should be discussion on it either way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pieterkonink (talk • contribs) 06:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

The Wikipedia article on Hunter S. Thompson refers to him as a journalist in the lead. Of course, using Wikipedia as a source is never a good idea, but the fact that it calls him a journalist is based on what other sources have said:

• "Death Of A Comic," :An essay critical of Thompson by William F. Buckley, Jr. in The National Review, 1 March, 2005.

Here, Buckley quotes a passage in which HST calls himself a journalist.

• "A Tribute to The Great Gonzo Gonzo," Seattle Times. [1] by Michael A. Stusser, 24 February, 2005.

Refers to what HST did as "journalism."

• "Gonzo In His Life As In His Work," A Tribute to Thompson by Tom Wolfe in The Wall Street Journal, 22 February 2005.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Tom Wolfe calls him a journalist.

• "Gonzo Nights," :an essay by Rich Cohen, a contributing editor for Rolling Stone published in The New York Times, 17 April, 2005.

Calls him a journalist.

I'm sure there are many more instances of Thompson's work being described as a form of journalism by members of the journalistic community. Those are just the first four external links in the HST article.--Media anthro 12:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Here I am a few months later. I must not have read that article correctly or perhaps I was engaging in some of my own "gonzo" habits when I read it. For some reason I had thought that HST was being held up as a regular journalist, but now I see he and gonzo journalism was under the "Alternatives" heading. At any rate, I'm glad I wrote that because those are some excellent sources you listed. Thanks for the great reads! Perhaps, as a side note, Michael Moore should also be listed under the Alternatives heading? Pieterkonink 20:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that it is important to point out that there are a number of definitions of objectivity, otherwise it can lead people to think that there is a single definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ch33kycharli31 (talk • contribs)

Objectivity of Objectivism

"Objectivity is a significant principle of journalistic professionalism, especially in the United Kingdom and United States." - is this statement objective in its own right? Other countries are worse? Another article states that journalistic standards are also upheld in European countries and in all countries in the world that have free press... - Nanirissen (talk) 09:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely. I doubt that "especially in the United Kingdom and United States" is even verifiable, let alone NPOV. Arimareiji (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

While I'd agree to getting rid of the "especially in the United Kingdom and United States" text, I think you're both misunderstanding what objectivity is. The article and its sources are not describing objectivity as an ideal or a "good thing". Journalistic objectivity--the assumption that it is possible or even desirable to separate "facts" from values in news reporting--is not an assumption made in many national traditions of journalism. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 23:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak for Nanirissen, but to me the reasons that it's POV are:

• Contrasts "journalistic professionalism" with countries other than UK and US.
• Context does not connote "objectivity" as being an abstract concept. "Objectivism" might be better, for starters.
• If you're going to assert that some countries have X viewpoint and some do not, it really needs cites or (IMO) it's almost inherently at risk of POV.

arimareiji (talk) 22:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Objectivism has nothing to do with journalism. The concept of journalistic objectivity, on the other hand, is the subject of multiple books that are actually cited in this article. And of course the standards journalistic professionalism differ from country to country. There was no claim in the article that one country was "less professional" in its practice of journalism than another.

I agree, though, that it was proper to remove the US/UK claim for mostly the same reasons.--Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 22:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right about objectivism; mea culpa. I still have trouble with not enquoting "objectivity," but using the wrong word is not the way to fix that. But I still say that the wording "is a significant principle of journalistic professionalism, especially in the UK and US" implied, if not inferred, that journalistic professionalism can be attributed more strongly to the UK and US. I suppose that brings me full-circle: Now I'm tempted to think that the sentence should be split to include the original notion that "objectivity" is not universally considered to be a tenet of journalistic professionalism. arimareiji (talk) 19:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right--the US/UK text was worded poorly and removing it improved the article. I do disagree in part with your latest edit though. I think it borders on original research to insert that bit about the Supreme Court's finding on obscenity. That said, the full reversion I did may have been overkill. I won't object if you want to change it back to your preferred version. I'll probably have some edits to make to yours when I have some spare time in the near future. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 00:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Another thing to consider on "core principles": Objectivity is not in fact a "core tenet" in all journalism. The way this statement is written now does not necessarily reflect a worldwide perspective on journalism. Furthermore, many journalists in the United States today do not identify "objectivity" as a core principle (they often talk about "fairness" or "balance" instead). --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 00:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I also believe that there's a lot of material in the intro that borders on original research. But if you compare my edit to your revert, you'll find that material was there to begin with. (With the exception of the cite re: difficulty of definition, which is another matter.) As I noted in the edit summary, my edit was only intended to reorganize what was already there to make it easier for the reader to compare and contrast. As it was, I believed it gave the false impression that these all described one central tenet, rather than being different beliefs. If you're familiar with the parable of the blind men and the elephant, that would be an excellent illustration.

As far as undoing your reversion, I won't do so for the time being. Not because I believe reversion as a first step was correct, but because you should have the chance to fix this yourself. WP:ROWN arimareiji (talk) 01:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

According to Hallin and Mancini, “objectivity,” which should be distinguished from professionalism and independence, is most typical of the Anglo world, especially US and UK. What we are talking about is not an abstract and impossible ideal but a rhetoric and philosophy of journalism, which is manifested in a number of aspects of journalism, but especially in the narrative style of “objective” journalism. For example, journalists in the US try to avoid expressing a viewpoint or being an advocate or siding with either of the two parties. They avoid strong adjectives and adverbs. They generally dispense with the pronoun “I.” This “objectivity” is quite different from the rhetoric and practices of journalism elsewhere, which often entails a dimension of open advocacy. That advocacy, some argue, actually enhances the capacity of journalism to explore some issues and events. In general, the rhetoric of objectivity should not be confused with actually having no viewpoint or theories to guide the journalist’s selection of facts and experts to quote. This entry then should be about the rise of this ethic, and its corresponding ideals, rhetoric and practices, not the reality of a mythical “objectivity.” In general see Dan Hallin and Paolo Mancini, Comparative Media Systems. Or my work on objectivity. --Rich Kaplan 6/09/2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.38.88 (talk) 03:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Conflicts of interest

Adding something about conflicts interest, exaggerating to sensationalize, and motivations of profit or career advancement should also be mentioned. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Removing some content

I'm removing some content that is unsourced and/or reads more like a personal opinion than encyclopedic content. The following paragraph seems a bit more significant than the other stuff I've done, so I'm noting it here. This appears to be a fringe decision made by an individual, and I don't think it sheds much light on the issue of objectivity in itself; it's more along the lines of trivia. So I don't think it belongs here (though it might belong in Washington Post or similar). -Pete (talk) 00:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

“ Professionally, most journalist strive for a neutral point of view, not taking a stand on any issues on which there is some disagreement and simply present "both sides" of an issue. Some even extend this standard to the journalist's personal life, prohibiting them from getting involved in political activities, which necessarily requires taking a stand. For example, Washington Post executive editor Leonard Downie, Jr. has stated that the Post maintains a code of ethics that forbids reporters and editors from all "political activities" except voting. Downie himself goes even further and "decided to stop voting when [he] became the ultimate gatekeeper for what is published in the newspaper". ”

References

History

This section is entirely mistaken. Objectivity did not emerge in the 1830s, nor do any scholars (except maybe Schiller) make this claim. Schudson sees objectivity in the 1920s. Kaplan in 1900-1910. Baldasty in late 19th century. Objectivity, as the references to Schudson suggest, implies an active distrust of the reporter's capacity to make judgments. So news adotps a discourse of unemotional facticity, quoting others and avoiding most adjectives and adverbs. That did not occur unitl late 19c and did not become the dominant professional ethic until the early 20c. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.254.85.211 (talk) 02:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

"Media balance" now redirects to Objectivity (journalism)

...and this has been done with the support of an AFD (partly because Media Balance already redirects to Objectivity (journalism) as well), however, as that page has already content different from Objectivity (journalism), making a history merge undesirable, the page has since been archived on Talk: Objectivity (journalism)/Media_balance. Content from that section should migrate to Objectivity (journalism) if it is properly cited.--SilentScope001 (talk) 13:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Right Quotes?

“ These rquote right quotes seem inappropriate. Layout should always be subservient to communication. The right quotes are a "design tool" typically used to lure a reader into an article by enhancing visual interest. Its a visual gimmick, eye candy, which runs counter to the core concept of objectivity. The subject here calls for being straight forward. Its almost as if the Right Quotes poke fun at the reader, presenting a confusing, albeit subliminal, counterpoint. ”

This template is meant for pull quotes, the visually distinctive repetition of text that is already present on the same page. In most cases, this is not appropriate for use in encyclopedia articles. The Manual of Style guidelines for block quotations recommend formatting block quotations using the {{Quote}} template or the HTML <blockquote> element, for which that template provides a wrapper.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Journalistic objectivity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120201173946/http://www.journalism.columbia.edu/profile/160-brent-cunningham/164 to http://www.journalism.columbia.edu/profile/160-brent-cunningham/164

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Journalistic objectivity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160405061527/http://www.journalism.columbia.edu/profile/62-michael-schudson/10 to http://www.journalism.columbia.edu/profile/62-michael-schudson/10

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

A crucial article like this needs a far greater injection of a more global perspective

Yet another article that is self-indulgently and self-obsessively North American-centric or anglosphere-centric. I have added tags to the "History" and "Criticisms" sections, asking for more examples of definitions or debates on the subject from outside the United States and the United Kingdom. Is journalistic objectivity not discussed at all in any other countries of the planet ?

Issues with maintaining journalistic objectivity, integrity and transparency are a worldwide subject and exist in vistually every country (even those that are sadly without a free press - those lack a space for even attempting journalistic objectivity). I would suggest more examples be added in the "History", "Criticisms", etc. section, from other parts of the world as well. Also, while the "Criticisms" section is , I would advise against greatly expanding. It defeats the purpose of the article if the Criticisms section is nearly longer or more detailed than the other sections of the article. There's also the fact that critical opinions on issues with objectivity in journalism vary, and putting too much undue weight on criticism seems like one is disparaging the very concept, or trying to reconfigure the entire article into a soap box or personal essay. Please be mindful of that before adding more contributions to the "Criticisms" section, or having that section focus entirely on United States and United Kingdom perspectives, while ignoring perspectives on the subject from everywhere else, even including e.g. continental Europe, Japan, South America, subsaharan Africa, etc.

There's a lot of politically motivated persecution, demonisation or pressuring/influencing of the media worldwide, so the topic of media objectivity, integrity of journalistic conduct, self-serving media ownership and partisan influence are all topics being globally discussed and deserving serious attention. Wikipedia cannot discuss these topics, because it is not a dicussion forum, but it should try to provide as much of a global perspective on these issues as possible, while being mindful of the fact that journalistic objectivity is often under attack by various political actors the world over, for populist and propaganda reasons of limiting the freedom of the press. --ZemplinTemplar (talk) 09:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Explanation of what "view from nowhere" means

@Biogeographist: Hi, just wanted to discuss a few edits made to the section "view from nowhere". Disclaimer: not trying to start a fight, just hoping to improve the article for laypeople.

I'm an eyeball doctor (yes, very technical term) so I have zero formal training in journalism. My reason for making the edits was that I read the section and was still confused. I understood the explanation of the potential negative effects of trying to adopt absolute impartiality but was still not 100% sure about why it was called "view from nowhere"; what is "nowhere" supposed to represent?

I added Meyer's quote "man from Mars' stance" to give something to compare against so readers could see that and go "oh, trying to be absolutely neutral in reporting, like you were reporting from the point of view of a man on mars, ie. a point of view from nowhere" But I agree that the framing of Meyers' quote can be tricky as Meyers isn't really a critic of the "view from nowhere" concept. His comments seems to suggest he advocates striving for absolute neutrality but acknowledges that it is, in practice, impossible to achieve. But his opinion wasn't as important as the wording used in the quote (which would help the reader). I think the quote could be added without any discussion about its speaker but, between his quote and Salant's quote, it might get a bit cluttered. I prefer Meyer's quote a little more since it's based in location but I think either could be used.

I appreciate how Biogeographist placed the quote but did hope to put either quote earlier on in the sentence, like

used the term view from nowhere, as if journalists were reporting "from nobody's point of view" or from "a man from Mars' stance", to refer to the potential negative effects of journalists' adoption of neutrality in reporting, whereby journalists may disinform their audience by creating the impression that they have an authoritative impartiality between conflicting positions on an issue,[30]

Another thing I was wrestling with was the meaning of "view from nowhere". My current understanding is that it's trying to convey the idea that it's not from the "left's" point of view or the "right's" point of view, but from a neutral place that is completely removed from the environment. And that's implicitly followed by "great, it's reported from a man from Mars' point of view. What use is that? It's going to be so removed from the realities of human life that it'll be useless to our readers". This seems to be what Klaidman and Beauchamp talk about with the "reasonable reader" who would want relevant information about the issue. But Rosen seems to focus more on the disinformation aspect of such neutrality, that such neutrality isn't just useless to the reader but actually harmful because it misleads the reader into thinking "hey, I can trust this source of news, they're very neutral" when it may be an argument to moderation fallacy. Between Rosen, Meyers, and others, they also roll in the impossibility of the concept as well--that absolute neutrality is impossible because real life is just too complicated.

Currently, the description is mainly about its potential to disinform (despite its efforts to legitimize itself) but doesn't really include the ideas about it being useless or the idea that it's impossible to achieve. Should the article include all three aspects in its definition?

Last bit (I swear) was the sourcing of the quote. Rosen uses the term extensively but he wasn't the originator of the quote. He mentions that it was borrowed from Thomas Nagel's book but the current wording of the article makes it seem like Rosen stated the origin of the term because he was the one who first started using it in relation to journalism. I wanted to avoid that by making it less explicit who coined the term when stating the Thomas Nagel aspect. From what I can tell, it seems like use of the phrase just kinda sprung up (possibly) independently in journalism, sociology, and other fields somewhere around the late 80s to 90s after Nagel's book was published.

Thoughts? Hope I'm not making mountains out of molehills. Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 18:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@Jasonkwe: "View from nowhere" is a metaphor for objectivity. What is objectivity in journalism? The whole article is an answer to that question. The paragraph at issue is part of the "Criticism" section and is mainly about journalism scholars and media critics who use the term "view from nowhere" as a criticism or pejorative. The paragraph is not about journalistic objectivity in general (which is the the whole article's subject) nor about criticism of objectivity (which is the whole section's subject). Klaidman and Beauchamp, and Meyer, discuss journalistic objectivity but don't use the term "view from nowhere", so their views don't belong in this paragraph; perhaps their views have a place elsewhere. I think Salant's statement is useful since it clearly shows that some media people have advocated a view from nowhere and that the critics aren't just arguing against a fantasy or a straw man, so thanks for adding that. I see your point that the first sentence wasn't as clear as it could have been, so I made another edit that addresses that point and a couple of your other points above. Take another look and see what you think. Maras says that the critical use of the term has been "promoted especially by Jay Rosen", and that's correct as far as I can see, so his prominence in the paragraph doesn't bother me. Thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 22:32, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@Biogeographist: Thanks, I agree, the paragraph isn't about objectivity in general or criticism of objectivity but about the term "view from nowhere" and how it relates to journalistic objectivity. I like your edits to the lead paragraph. I hadn't really even thought about arguments against the "view from nowhere" potentially being seen as strawman arguments if not for explicit examples of support for it. Yeah, if anything, I guess Klaidman and Beauchamp's views would actually be better off in the Alternatives section since that's what the most interesting part of their argument focuses on.

I wasn't opposed to talking about Rosen since he does have a lot to contribute on the subject. I was just kinda iffy about descriptions that imply he was the first or one of the first to use that phrase, as opposed to explaining why the phrase became used in the journalism field. My guess is that it'd probably be hard to pin down who first used the phrase in relation to journalistic objectivity. But that's not a huge deal. Thanks again for your advice and revisions! Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 03:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)