Objectivity in journalism is a broad topic highly debated from different points of view. Opinions on objectivity range from the academic – chapters on journalistic objectivity can be found in all ethics research papers and textbooks – to personal professional experience. Most recently, it has also become a topic of regular conversation in everyday life. People frequently complain that journalists have not been objective in their coverage of specific news. This issue is as old as the profession. When objectivity is mentioned, it refers to the principle of journalism; in other words, it is regarded as a characteristic or requirement of the journalist.
Using this traditional concept of journalistic objectivity, the perception of objectivity as a product of journalistic work is surprising. This book begins with the discovery of a novel approach to the treatment of objectivity, provided by so-called “mass media sociology”, which, at its peak between 1970 and 1980 in the United States, is a pragmatic proposal for a totally scientific, almost “mathematical” approach to the “problem” of objectivity.
On the other hand, “real” journalistic work shows professionals resolving the issue of objectivity in a practical way: awarding equal time to opposing positions; interviewing authorized sources; obtaining official declarations, etc. It is a fact that journalists around the world, not only those from the United States, have somehow established methods that allow them to achieve this ideal objectivity demanded by the academic world and even more strongly by their sources, the public and the business world.
Research dealing with objectivity in mass media sociology is especially relevant because it addresses a concept that is coherently argued in American thinking. Mass media sociology begins its argument “in reverse”, similar to journalistic ethics: it is concerned with objectivity from the point of view of the outcome, and not the attitude of the journalist.
To begin with, mass media sociologists maintained that objectivity is not related to news content, but rather its form. Later they stated that they don’t believe it is “correct” for it to occur this way, adding that real ← 1 | 2 → objectivity in news cannot be achieved using this approach. Throughout the course of their research, they were critical of journalistic work and pessimistic about the result of the work of the media.
This book covers what has been written about journalistic objectivity by the most influential media sociologists. With the exception of two, their work does not deal specifically with objectivity, but rather, in broader terms, with journalistic routines and their influence on the news. A thorough analysis of journalistic objectivity and how it is understood by mass media sociology will be conducted, although this issue is not the primary focus of their work. Interpreting, relating and examining the background of the positions that inspired the authors is required.
This book observes and compares both the traditional and sociological schools of thought to identify their similarities and differences, with emphasis placed primarily on the proposals of media sociologists, since they are the authors under review. They are all from the United States: Herbert Gans, Gaye Tuchman, Mark Fishman, Todd Gitlin, Edward Epstein, Harvey Molotoch, Marilyn Lester and Michael Schudson.
These eight sociologists lived and worked during the same period of time. They knew and influenced each other. Their concept of life and journalism was quite similar, as was the focus and the concerns of their studies. Although they followed the pragmatic philosophical point of view, there are, nevertheless, nuances which distinguish their approaches.
Despite the fact that media sociologists do not propose a definition of objectivity, they do reach one, although far from its traditional definition. Some of the authors come close to a definition, but they do not clarify dissimilar terms classically “related” to objectivity. In addition, they equate objectivity to truth, justice, credibility, accuracy and detachment.
This book is mainly about two issues: objectivity and journalistic routines. I would like to expound on this idea. The concept of journalistic routines was first named by media sociologists, and by way of ethnomethodological studies, they analyzed the relationship between the way journalists work and produce a product: the news. The question to be asked now is whether, after forty years of study, it is valid to speak of journalistic routines, ethnomethodology as a research method and the “story” that news reporters construct while knowing the reality. ← 2 | 3 →
Is it possible to talk about constructing news through routines in a changing stage where new actors are involved? We realize, as did media sociologists in the 1970s, that it is not useful to think of journalists producing news as a means to search for the truth and, therefore, becoming a watchdog for society.
There is sufficient literature on news-making thanks to the work of the first media sociologists. In this sense, Berkowitz has made a very good selection of texts (Berkowitz, 1997). News continues to be formed from the interaction between journalists, media and society. Schudson says in a later text (Schudson, 1989) that news is a product of work carried out in a social environment, and that the mass media is made up of bureaucratic organizations and news is the result of a routine and bureaucratic process.
The media sociology perspective is still valid because news production is not as simple as stating that journalists seek events and then transmit them to the public. Now there are even more factors involved in news production: citizen participation, blogs and a number of elements that, thanks to increasingly easy technology for citizens, make an empowered and active public. Neither can we separate influences from journalists’ beliefs, media, business pressures and audience. The work of journalists is shaped by the economic necessities of a media organization in its particular socioeconomic system. There is constant tension between the journalist’s search for truth and the constraints of the organization. Robert Park’s idea that news is a form of knowledge is still valid.
What drove media sociologists to begin their studies was the “gatekeeper” research published in 1950 by David Manning White. The topic of the gatekeeper that gave rise to these studies is still present today, in addition to further variables. David Manning White’s question continues to be relevant: which of all the events that occur in reality become news? Who defines this? The term “gatekeeper” is still in use and provides a metaphor for the relation between news organizations and news products. The problem is that the news is already manufactured by the journalist, and it is the role of the gatekeeper to decide which news will be published.
In order to understand why the media sociologist’s argument is still valid, it is crucial to see journalists not as journalists, but as people who have to do their work well. News organizations need to be considered simply ← 3 | 4 → as production facilities, just like any other, with expectations for the quality and quantity of its workers’ activities. News is the outcome of strategic work routines that journalists apply to meet organizational expectations. News helps make sense of reality.
Journalists are our “make-sensers”. We need them to help us understand the world of public affairs beyond our direct experience. Talk show hosts, bloggers, political activists, politicians and commentators cannot be trusted to take care of the facts. Citizens need journalists more than ever because there is so much information available, of varying quality and relevance. Journalists are in the daily business of making the unseen visible, of connecting us to the world beyond our direct experience. Public life is increasingly complex and we need an ongoing source of timely and relevant information on daily issues.
Surveys over the past decade show a steady rise in the number of Americans who prefer to get their information from partisan bloggers or talk show hosts.
New journalists struggle with uncertainties, deal with new market pressures and create new journalists’ conventions to provide much-needed insight into the changes the Internet has wrought on the work and practice of journalism. However, the Internet is not the first “disruptive technology” to hit newsrooms. Other innovations have radically transformed the news media, but the Internet as the new channel for producing, packaging and distributing news has dramatically challenged every aspect of media organizations.
This new scenario for media and journalists has been analyzed in recent years. The topics studied have been wide-ranging: new business models; content analyses of the ways in which online news is leveraging the opportunities for new ways to craft information; essays about ethical issues in the online environment; surveys of professional attitudes and the new news consumer’s behavior and preferences. The daily work of journalists, their work routines and their values are not examined as extensively (Paterson and Domingo, 2008).
It is impossible to comprehend the nature of news – or manufactured reality – without getting to the heart of the manufacturing process and the shared culture of the manufacturers. ← 4 | 5 →
Literature reviews of online journalism research (Kopper, Kolthoff and Czepek, 2000; Boczkowski, 2002; Domingo, 2005) suggest that studies have concentrated more on content, professional profiles and attitudes and audiences than on the production routines and context of the working process. Without these early ethnographic investigations into news production, our understandings of journalism would be limited to what little we are able to gleam from the observation of news content, or from what journalists say they do.
Newsrooms are the actual space for decision-making in the development of online journalism, where genres, routines, values and products are tested and created.
Chapter 1 of this book is divided into two parts and points out the most important topics that will be dealt with. The first topic deals with the sociology of mass media and its main authors, including an “intellectual biography” of each one as well as an examination of their mutual influences. The main topics of each media sociologist are outlined, as well as the starting point of their research, how it was carried out and the emphasis they wanted to give to their texts. Because these authors are strongly influenced by pragmatism, it was necessary to review the most relevant concepts of this point of view in order to understand what they have to say about the media, the news, the journalist and objectivity.
The second part of Chapter 1 deals with how the scholarly authors arrived at the concept of objectivity through what they call “journalistic routines”. They maintain that news is constructed by journalists through work routines that guarantee the objectivity of the final product. They explain that objectivity is synonymous with news because of its form, and the news, in turn, is synonymous with the construction of reality. This is how the topics of routine, news and its relationship with objectivity are introduced, which will be dealt with in depth in Chapter 2. The end of the chapter examines the subject of the journalist as part of the news process, presented by the same authors.
Chapter 2 explains the routines of organizations in general, followed by those of journalistic work. These routines affect not only the work, but also, in an important way, media content. Sociologists consider that mass media is not like any organization: it “manufactures” a “product” comprised ← 5 | 6 → of facts, opinions or ideas that affect the way we perceive the world and how we make our decisions.
Sociologists consider objectivity as the form of news. In order to back up this affirmation, they make a detailed analysis of the way journalists manufacture or assemble a story. Of particular interest, in this sense, is the “fact-by-triangulation” method, which is explained in the second part of the chapter.
Finally, an analysis is made of the critique that objectivity receives when it is understood to be the mere form of the stories. The same media sociologists outline these critiques and conclude that “objectivity” ensured by routines facilitates bias, hides the real news content and protects journalists from any possible attacks from the public.
Chapter 3 focuses on the authors’ assertion that objectivity is as much a requirement of the journalist as it is a need to grant credibility to his stories and defend himself from criticism. This issue will be discussed through a historical retelling of objectivity in the United States. The authors will add that it is difficult for journalists to achieve objectivity.
The second part of the chapter presents the difficulties that reporters encounter when putting their stories together objectively. The third part deals with objectivity as an ethical ideal. Here the thinking of Desantes (1976) offers a definition of objectivity and satisfactorily answers the question of why objectivity is required in journalism. The most significant contribution to the ideas put forth in the book is the assertion that objectivity is an attitude of the journalist and, thus, an ethical ideal.
This position is not foreign to media sociologists because, in order to affirm that journalists conceive objectivity as a form of the news, they have outlined a series of arguments that are related to objectivity as an ideal. They will compare objectivity to other similar concepts. The detachment concept is particularly interesting. Through it, the authors propose that the journalist will resolve issues such as those regarding values and ideologies, professional autonomy and defense against different attacks.