Conclusion

← 218 | 219 →

The thinking of mass media sociologists follows the pragmatist philosophical tradition. This orientation explains the authors’ focus on the media and the news as transmitters of knowledge to a society that “knows”, precisely, through the media.
Their initial emphasis on dissident movements in society and the difficulty they have in being “heard” by the media, and therefore being “known” by the public, leads the authors to discover, describe and examine journalistic routines. According to the authors, because of these routines, the acts of reporting and then constructing news are carried out in an “objective” manner. In their opinion, objectivity is the very basis of the news. From this viewpoint, the use of these routines makes it unlikely that the media will transmit what the authors consider to be appropriate kinds of news about alternative movements.
The authors claim that journalists “construct” reality by way of the same process through which they know this reality. The underlying idea, far removed from classical theory, is that reality cannot be known and then transmitted to the public. Interaction with reality is seen not simply as a mental operation, but also as a way of working. In the authors’ judgment, it is journalistic routines that enable the subject to give form and content to the world, in other words, to construct reality.
This theory of the construction of reality developed gradually in the so-called field of “mass media sociology”. From the mirror metaphor, which reflects or distorts reality, more realistic postures about what occurs in journalistic work begin to emerge. It can be said that the news orders, defines, delineates, configures, composes or frames reality, ultimately leading to the construction of reality.
From a constructivist perspective, the news makes it possible for one to know what is happening, not because the external world is endowed ← 219 | 220 → with certain forms that make it comprehensible, but because those who know the external world use specific, preconceived methods to organize that world into something coherent. This notion of knowledge leads the authors to deduce that the news is the result of methods that journalists use to know external reality.

The authors suggest that journalists, news organizations and news sources use objectivity to build a model of society that they are interested in transmitting. As a result it is objectivity itself that deprives dissident movements from playing a meaningful role in society.

Authors that study the sociology of labor identify certain behavioral patterns that come into play in the functioning of an organization. Employees do not invent new solutions each time they are faced with a problem, but use previous work agreements that over time become customary; these are applied instead of making personal choices and preferences each time. These work routines are linked to an attempt to get the job done efficiently: effective organization, time-saving techniques, technical specialization, formalities, etc.

Journalistic routines originated in response to a series of professional circumstances: excess of material that could potentially be news; limited time and space; staff and budget constraints; and the need to compete with other media outlets.

The way in which journalists believe they know reality enables them to build their objective news stories by using particular work routines. The world can be known from a variety of different perspectives, and perspective is one of the criteria that the journalist will use to select, formulate and write stories. Reporters assume that sources and their stories will be different because of their different stances toward an event. This is called the “fact-by-triangulation” technique of news investigation.

The rigorous analysis employed in the “fact-by-triangulation” method to construct a news story leads to the premise that journalists base their objectivity on the form of the story, on how the occurrence is presented to the public.

Mass media sociologists think that journalists should be capable of invoking some notion of objectivity to process facts about social reality. ← 220 | 221 → They identify three factors that influence the journalist’s notion of objectivity: form, inter-organizational relations and content. The formal attributes of a news story are: verifying “the facts”, presenting conflicting possibilities, presenting “supporting evidence” and structuring the information in appropriate sentences.

The strongest criticism of mass media sociology’s approach to objectivity as the form of the news is that objectivity hides the content of the news. Other criticisms assert (1) that the news rests on a “set of substantive political assumptions” whose validity is never questioned; (2) that the form is the content; (3) that the form of a news story incorporates its own bias; and (4) that the form of a news story is strongly determined by news reporting routines. Hence, there is a clear discrepancy between the end sought (objectivity) and the means used (the journalistic procedures described).

Although they criticize objectivity in this regard, the authors conclude that objectivity can be demanded from a profession, and that, in fact, professionals rely on objectivity in order to do their work. The authors agree that in journalism, as in all other professions, objectivity is a type of consensus, procedure or formality that lends the journalist a certain security in acting and protects his credibility. Objectivity is one of the factors that legitimizes a profession.

The mass media sociologists do not say what objectivity is, nor why objectivity legitimizes a profession; neither do they describe the inherent features of objectivity that qualify it to legitimize a profession. What they do refer to is why objectivity is needed in the profession. The authors also describe other characteristics of objectivity: (1) that it constitutes a reaction against skepticism and reflects a passion for the facts; (2) that it is the affirmation of a method; and (3) that it appears to be a defense mechanism that protects professionals from their errors and from critics.

The authors agree that journalists face a series of difficulties in practicing objectivity that include: (1) time pressures, (2) lack of training in being detached from their own values, (3) lack of insulation from the public and (4) certain limiting aspects of the news organization. ← 221 | 222 →

Far from the notion of objectivity as a routine is the classical conception of objectivity in the profession, which is as an ethical ideal of the journalist. Although the mass media sociologists believe that the media has resolved the issue of objectivity, as a requirement for legitimizing their trade, by routinizing it, in some way they have also addressed the issue of objectivity as a journalistic ideal.

There are subtle differences in each author’s understanding of the concept of objectivity as an ideal. Positions range from a realist philosophical approach to the topic to the idea of objectivity as artificial innocence. For some, the journalist’s goal should be to pursue accuracy in the news and reproduce reality as faithfully as possible. Others will say that objectivity is the journalist’s conscious effort to maintain his detachment from personal values in the way he gathers the facts and writes the story.

The position that is farthest from classical theory among the mass media sociologists argues that the news and the truth are not the same thing, and should be clearly distinguished. This assertion is influenced by the assumption that powerful agents in society provide the media with the news they want published. The greatest difference between the traditional view of objectivity and this position is that it does not link objectivity with real facts.

The authors tend to confuse, or at least make synonymous, terms that are related to objectivity as an ideal, but are not objectivity itself. In general, as synonyms for objectivity they use the concepts of truth, impartiality, fairness, credibility, accuracy and detachment. This last concept particularly captured the interest of US sociologists.

The mass media sociologists offer two different approaches to detachment from values. One view holds that journalists display a preference for important values, including enduring values of the nation and society. The exclusion of values is therefore accompanied by an inclusion of values that is manifested both through news selection and opinions expressed in specific news stories. Detachment also demands that one unlinks oneself from values and opinions that could bias a news story. Detachment will be used to justify journalists’ professional autonomy. ← 222 | 223 →

Mass media sociologists agree that notions of truth, impartiality, fairness, credibility, accuracy and detachment have been routinized because they are a practical necessity for journalists in their quest to guarantee objectivity in the news.

The book proposes that objectivity in the news is determined by the decision of the journalist to apply, honestly and responsibly, a series of routines that guarantee, in each particular case, that he will transmit the truth in his stories. The phrase “in each particular case” has been added because the application of routines cannot be automatic. Each fact must be treated individually by the journalist, who must decide which routines to use in transforming that fact into news.

Objectivity requires that the journalist make an effort to overcome the difficulties of his work: tight deadlines, pressure from sources and the public and potential conflicts with editorial policy or the interests of the news company. ← 223 | 224 →