Objective Journalism

Those who are open to personal values influencing journalistic practice have criticized the issue of objective reporting by journalists. This is because of the present unbalance between journalists’ freedom and responsibility; their role as representatives of the Fourth Estate and their freedom and need to communicate and uphold ideas and values (Hirst & Patching 2005). There are many criteria for ‘good’ journalism and objectivity and has long been considered a vital factor, however is it fair to assume that journalistic practices change with the political and social movements of the world. This paper addresses the issue of personal and moral beliefs in journalism and whether it is acceptable or indeed required in today’s society, or whether it remains a hindrance to good journalism and the role of the Fourth Estate.

The Fourth Estate refers to the media’s role as an intermediary and watchdog whose purpose is to inform and serve the best interests of the public. It is documented by Carlyle that Edmund Burke coined the phrase, placing the media with the other three estates, parliaments, courts and government (formerly the church), he also emphasized its importance and influence. “Burke said there were three estates in parliament; but in the reporters gallery yonder there sat the Fourth Estate, more important than they all…Whoever can speak, speaking now to the whole nation, becomes a power, a branch of government, with inalienable weight in law-making, in all acts of authority.” (Carlyle 1968)

Carlyle’s quote demonstrates why journalists are professional representatives of the fourth estate, journalists hold power as providers of information to the public and are essentially responsible or forming and shaping their moral values and opinions. It is for this reason that objectivity in journalism as long been a requirement, because it was thought only by providing unbiased and fair information can the public make an accurate judgment. This thinking is being challenged by ‘unconventional’ journalists who see reporting as a channel to communicate more expressively about and issue.

The case for expressive reporting of values is becoming stronger with many beginning to see it as a valid model. It is important to note that these values become innate as a product of upbringing and elicit automatic responses. Rather than blatantly displaying personal thoughts on an issue when reporting hard news, this refers to a much subtler approach, focused on reporting a ‘natural,’ uncommercialised response to the topic. As described by Maxine McKew about her first interview with Pauline Hanson, she reacted instinctively and irrationally to the challenge to her values(fine lines 2004). Every journalist will have their own set of values therefore it is impossible to be purely objective because everyone will react to a situation differently. These moral beliefs can range from religion to social issues such as obesity and same-sex marriage.

Commercialisation is one of the reasons for changes in the media, with commercial ownership and control of the media a threat to free and ethical journalism. The MEAA code of ethics clause one states, “report and interpret honestly,” the word interpret implies the judgment is the journalists own to make what is reported on and what information is most newsworthy. The second part of this clause states, “do not suppress relevant or available facts or give distorting emphasis,” this elaborates on the word ‘interpret’ directing journalists to do their utmost to be fair and reasonable (MEAA 2007). The second clause more specifically emphasizes a fair judgment of race, ethnicity, religion etc. in news, ensuring that these issues reach the news only if they are vital to the story. The code of ethics is possibly the most clear and concise definition of ethical journalism. The conclusion drawn from these two clauses is that while a degree of individual judgment is required in journalism, no personal opinion or value should be included at the risk of misrepresentation of individuals or groups.

Belsey and Chadwick suggest that while the code of ethics is a good guideline for journalists it cannot always apply. For instance clause eight of the code of ethics requires the journalist to always he open and honest about their profession and intent, this may be challenged where the individual is required to operate in secrecy to get information. While the code of ethics may not find this acceptable the information gathered by such methods may be for the greater good (Belsey & Chadwick 1992, 9). Personal opinion may benefit a story or be required to generate thought within the public and for these reasons the ‘guidance clause’ or journalism ethics was written allowing such occurrences. However, in these cases invariably it is necessary to disclose why the position is being held and the journalist’s own personal stance on the issue.

It is evident that in a changing world traditional practices become old fashioned very quickly and journalism is no exception. Dan Gillmor documents his view of objectivity and outlines a new model of contemporary reporting, “the idea of objectivity is a worthy one. But we are human. We have biases and backgrounds and a variety of conflicts that we bring to our jobs every day. I'd like to toss out objectivity as a goal, however, and replace it with four other notions that may add up to the same thing. They are pillars of good journalism: thoroughness, accuracy, fairness and transparency.” (Gillmor 2005)
Gillmor elaborates to clarify each pillar, thoroughness refers to the effort which the journalist must put into research in order to first understand it themelves. Accuracy in all reporting is essential, clarifying what is unknown is just as important as what is known. The more difficult element of fairness is different to writing objectively, because, as ….. states, it is impossible for the writer to be objective(…) and sometimes the ‘balance’ journalists seek is not a fair representation of the issue. Rather, Gillmor suggests a fair account of evidence and information, which may or may not present favorably one side of the subject. For example if overwhelming evidence is provided by scientists to suggest a drug is a truly reliable breakthrough then the journalists responsibility is to present that information and its criticisms fairly, it would be wrong to present it as an equal debate (Kovach & rosenstiel 2001)
Gillmor’s model differs from the rigid view of objectivity, however does not allow room for personal opinion or values in journalism, rather emphasizing the need for accuracy while calling the writer to make an educated judgment of the issue. Furthermore, transparency in Gillmor’s model requires the journalist to be clear and open about their personal views and beliefs, noting it should be the fate of all journalists to make this information public knowledge. This is because it gives the reader further information with which to judge the information provided by the media. Gillmor provided a good framework for journalism practise that is not flawed like traditional objective reporting, and it clearly shows there is no place for personal views as they are neither accurate nor fair.
Julianne Schulz makes a different argument, presenting a paradox of professionalism which differs between two types of journalists; intellectual journalists and professional journalists (1994). The latter focus on fact and objectivity, sticking to a strict format and schedule to deliver mainstream news. However, intellectuals, described by Gramsci, take sides and write with conviction about certain beliefs (1971). This is important because of the growing trend of media conglomerates and the corporatisation of media. Both groups are important in providing information and challenging mainstream views but this theory allows for a very blurred line between the two types of journalists which can mislead the public. This view is valid however in this case the presence of personal values in reporting may be beneficial in a postmodern society, I will also make for a very inconsistent media. Carlyle, Thomas. On heroes and hero-worship and the heroic in history. London, Oxford University Press, 1968

The Elements of Journalism: What Newspeople Should Know and the Public Should Expect
By Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel (New York Crown Publishers, 2001)

Gillmor, Dan. The end of objectivity (version 0.91) http://dangillmor.typepad.com/dan_gillmor_on_grassroots/2005/01/the_end_of_obje.html. Acessed 29 july 2007

Hirst, Martin & Patching, Roger. 2005. Journalism ethics, arguments and cases. Oxford University Press: new york

Schulz, Julianne. Quoted in Hirst, Martin & Patching, Roger. 2005. Journalism ethics, arguments and cases. Oxford University Press: new york 33

Gramsci, Antonio, quoted in Hirst, Martin & Patching, Roger. 2005. Journalism ethics, arguments and cases. Oxford University Press: new york pg 33

Media Entertainment Arts Alliance.
Besey, Andrew & Chadwick, Ruth. 1992. Ethical Issues in Journalism and the Media. Routledge: London. 9

Fine LinesFine Line, Episode Two. Marcom Projects 2004. (The people interviewed were: ABC TV Late Line Maxine McKew; ABC Radio Virginia Trioli; and
ABC TV Kerry O'Brien, and Sally Loane.

The interviewer is Ellen Fanning.