The myth of objective journalism

Pretty good article. Objectivity is an idea which has little traction not only in journalism but also in epistemology, science and philosophy. Though it has become fashionable to argue against objectivity in an atmosphere heavy laden with postmodernism.

Interestingly, however I don’t think holding the view that objective journalism is a myth is necessarily any better. A danger is of course this fizzles into a meaningles morally relativistic discussion. If objectivity cannot be acheived why bother with convictions? Liberal philosophers and thinkers become increasingly uncomfortable with this notion and indeed in the end it does fizzle into a form of relativism (http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010%5C10%5C06%5Cstory6-10-2010pg3_5 : Virus of Cultural Relativism). There can be a tendency to relativistic thinking.

A problem for some Western journalists (particularly on the liberal left) is they avoid passing moral judgement on some social practices in the developing world altogether. ”How can we subject the moral practices of another culture by using our own culture as a yardstick”, has become an attractive and popular argument. By accepting that there is no objectivity instead of being more opinionated, there is a danger people can become more apathetic.

This leaves the media public sphere open to the narrow moralisms of the Right and fundamentalisms. Harvard philosopher Michael Sandel quiet rightly says, ” ”Fundamentalisms rush in where liberals fear to tread”.

Why are Fox and Geo successful? Because they do genuinely believe (particularly Fox) that there is objective truth in the world, and that they have it and they have an obligation to forward it in their news coverage. Fox is unashamedly neo-conservative out of conviction. Fox and Geo don’t see themselves as having ”one narrative among many possible narratives”, they see themselves as having ”the narrative.”

Objectivity maybe dead, but now the task is not to slip towards an apathetic slide towards relativism. That will be a difficult task….Recommend

As human nature is , I hate the readers who say “the writer should have shown the other side of the story too.”…how many angles, and how many views do they want? No one can analyze any event or story from 360 degree angle…..who has the time to do so? even if someone has the time, may not be having the resources to explore everything objectively…..Plus opeds, reports, and blogs have little biasness too……..media is money hungry and always in search of “masala” stories…100 % objective journalism is a myth………..can never be attained….specially at a place where yellow journalism is there……………great post………Recommend

Very good article. And very objective i must say! Recommend

Talking about objectivity in any scenario is very difficult as someone very rightly put it, its “human nature” to have impressions and opinions start forming as soon as the eyes, ears pass the vibes to the brain. Just like a sketch which starts from a dot, then a line, a shape, figure and eventually a picture completes.

What I learnt from sketching is that in my very first attempt to start drawing a still life which was right in front of me was that I was not looking at it “as it is”. The sketch that I made was what you could call a basket of fruits but it was not “that” basket of fruit which was placed in front of me.

I realized that I, along with major chunk of the society have a picture/impression of almost everything. And I would like to believe in it the way I know it.

Media channels are run by humans (of course) its the same thing there. Those people do belong to certain groups pro or against a certain group. what they would like to believe in or what they support is what they’d like to show or write on their channel/newspaper. Journalism being a myth can be true for the same reason. I’d like to call it “the human error”.

If journalism is about being a watch dog then it would be right to say and think that our media is exploiting the freedom, or to the least that its not doing justice to their job description.

Lastly, the truth finding is about finding facts from different resources to actually come down to a conclusion. What all I see is that if its a tell a tale kind of fact finding, there is a great chance of getting lost in a maze, because if we were not present at the scene to really know what happened, we are bound to agree and accept what may sound logically acceptable, making us buy the “bias” story. Say, we searched 10 different places and all those 10 places had a unanimous opinion about a story line. The opinion which “actually” was not true or half true. Then truth is not really found.

i liked what your article, it was food for thought. Keep up the good work !Recommend

“We shouldn’t be looking for ‘the truth’ in any one publication. Somewhere between the cacophony of opinions, news reports, expert panels, blogs and columns lies the truth but it isn’t something you can find, it’s something you have to make on your own. The smart reader will gather news about a particular event from several different places and form their own opinion about what happened and how they feel about it. Unless you were there when it happened, and most of us weren’t, this is the best we can do in our quest for objectivity.”

We should be looking for truth in each and every publication. Of course there would be versions of truth but just because Fox and Geo sell doesn’t mean that when they report non-factually they should be allowed to!

All truth is subjective, but it has to be truth. It has to be based on facts and it has to be fair and balanced, literally! You know why?

Because the media represents the mindset of a people. Our media shows violence, engages in pointless political dialog and almost never looks for any substantive investigative journalism!

Don’t defend it their lack of competence, rather encourage them to get there!

And again, seriously, you are musician. It is okay to have an opinion, but the ‘media’ should not give any tom dick and harry a right to say whatever!Recommend