“How Objectivity in Journalism Became a Matter of Opinion.” Ideas Arena: The Future of News. The Economist. 18 Jul. 2020.
“How Objectivity in Journalism Became a Matter of Opinion” examines what’s at stake when reporters become the subject of news coverage and ignite disagreement about “the nature and purpose of journalism.”
The author frames the analysis by examining how journalists reacted to riots that erupted in the wake of George Floyd’s death in 2020. Their reactions crystalized a broader, in-progress movement away from objectivity as a journalistic standard by admitting that they didn’t believe a journalist’s job was to report facts and let readers decide what to think about them; their job was to advocate for what they think is right. The Columbia Journalism Review encapsulated that belief, assuming the shift was inevitable and universally approved by asking: “What comes after we get rid of objectivity in journalism?” The answer, according to most journalists and news organizations, is “moral clarity.” The Economist acknowledges that objectivity wasn’t always American journalism’s standard, alluding to the pervasive sensationalism, political slant, exaggeration, and appeals to emotion that marked 1890s Yellow Journalism, but noted that with hindsight, the industry preferred objectivity and has adhered to it until recently.
The Economist echoes my concerns about journalism’s recent shift from objectivity to advocacy. The problem with believing one’s job is to advocate for what’s right is that everyone believes they know what’s right. It’s one thing to think, speak, and act according to what we think is right as a private citizen; it’s another to do so as a professional with the reach and power of the media at one’s disposal. The arrogance of The Columbia Journalism Review's assumption that moral clarity equates to journalists' morals is shocking and disheartening. It's also insulting to the American public. Morals vary by culture, framework, and circumstance. Even murder is considered moral when committed in self-defense. America is a country founded on the belief that individuals are capable of forming and adhering to their own moral standards while living in a peaceful, pluralistic yet cohesive society. It has existed that way for over 200 years. Assuming an individual, organization/publication, or profession is the be-all end-all of moral authority goes against the very nature of reporting, not to mention the principles of plurality and democracy on which America was founded and has existed for more than 200 years. It's authoritarian. I agree with The Economist’s warning that too often, “advocates of moral clarity slide self-righteously towards crude subjectivity.” As an example, one could point to the moral clarity white colonizers based on their Christian faith and used to enslave Africans.
Tension between what journalists communicate in their professional capacity versus what they communicate as private citizens further complicates the issue of objectivity in journalism. Their private comments are often given the weight of professional expertise because journalism often confers a high-profile status based on recognizability.
That tension fits within the context of an older, broader, and more ubiquitous one: the lofty aim to serve the public good versus the commercial aim to make a profit. Claims of moral clarity can become even more dangerous when paired with commercial interests. Modern journalists exacerbate America’s political divide by seeking to serve both simultaneously at any cost. As The Economist notes, “readers love opinion,” and “the incentive to keep readers happy—and the penalty for failing—are greater than ever.” The result is news organizations “inserting more value judgments into their copy,” such as the article’s example of a 2019 Huffington Post headline “A Fascist Trump Rally In Greenville.” The event in question was a political rally. No fascist organizations or individuals were identified at the event, but the headline furthers the Post's advocacy for a politically left-leaning platform. Other examples The Economist could include in an updated version of this article are journalists’ universal adaption of the phrases “civil unrest” and "mostly peaceful protests" when describing weeks-long protests of the Minneapolis Police Department that included looting, arson, gunshots, assault, and battery in both Minneapolis and St. Paul (which has a separate police force), while universally describing the January 6, 2021 protest at the U.S. Capitol as a “storm,” “attack,” “insurrection,” "riot," and “90 Seconds of Rage." The double-standard applied to framing and describing these two events is merely one example revealing how deeply bias and subjectivity have seeped into "objective" journalism and how broadly American journalists identify left-leaning political views as "objective" and "moral."
The article’s closing line offers journalists and readers a guiding principle that helps prevent sliding from objectivity to subjectivity: “Recognising and embracing the uncertainty [of serving the public good] means being humble—but not timid.”
Although very helpful for educators seeking to teach information literacy, narrative analysis, or critical thinking, the article itself doesn't need to be assigned to students because its content repeats themes from articles on related topics. Instead, educators could replace or pair this with educator materials for Jeffrey Kuiken's "Effective Headlines of Newspaper Articles in Digital Environment" or Jonathan Hardy's "Sponsored Editorial Content in Digital Journalism."