Opinion

The myth of objective journalism

Its high time Pakistanis realise that objective journalism is a myth, an outdated ideal and possibly even an oxymoron.

Omar Bilal Akhtar October 06, 2010

Go on and find a living room, gather around a group of people you know and ask them what is wrong with the media today. You’ll get a whole bunch of responses as everyone stampedes to condemn the various evils afflicting our media. The media is too sensational. The media is money hungry. The media is the puppet of ethnic groups. The media is a Zionist conspiracy. But you’ll find that the most common complaint being parroted about is how ‘the media isn’t objective’ and ‘they don’t show both sides of the story’.

It’s time the public in Pakistan realised what journalists in the West have known for a long time, that objective journalism is a myth, an outdated ideal and possibly even an oxymoron.

When the Taliban bomb a girls’ school and kill several innocent people, the headline isn’t going to read “Taliban bomb girls’ school, kill several innocent people but also score important victory in their noble resistance against the un-Islamic education of women’. Being a writer means you pick a side and you stick to it. If you’re Fox News or Geo, then you pick a narrative and you repeat it ad nauseam. What people don’t want is confusion or dithering. They don’t want the ambiguity and complexity that are essential components of any major real life event. When you have a news channel that tries to have it’s feet on both sides of the bridge you end up having a cluttered, schizophrenic approach to reporting that ultimately achieves nothing.

Journalists are supposed to be watchdogs, a position that is in stark contrast with that of a sober, objective, presenter of facts. As Robert Fisk said: “There is a misconception that journalists can be objective. What journalism is really about is to monitor power and the centres of power.”

There is no objective journalism because humans cannot tell an objective story. Everything comes down to an opinionated decision; what news to omit, what to put on the front page, who to interview and who to ignore. Every one of these decisions reflects the political bias and corporate interests of the people making them.

It’s no coincidence that Fox News and Geo TV are the top news channels in each of their respective countries. There’s a reason why newspapers are expanding their editorial sections. It isn’t simply enough to go around peddling ‘the facts’. People want an opinion. They want their news to have an opinion so that they can either use it to vindicate their own or have something to rail against. Either way, they want to hear it, because the alternative is too benign. Having an opinion means you have at least a smidgen of activism within you and this comforts people.

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.

Published in The Express Tribune, October 7^th, 2010.

COMMENTS (11)

ocap | 13 years ago | Reply True. Wikipedia is the closest to objective journalism (in addition to many other things) that anyone can get.

Rakesh | 13 years ago | Reply "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!

VIEW MORE COMMENTS

Gulmeenay | 13 years ago | Reply I agree that objectivity is impossible, but I'd like to aware of what agenda a particular media outlet has. If I'm aware that Geo for instance, is propagating a certain agenda, I can chose what to believe from what they report. And I wish these electronic news channels wouldn't sell themselves as the flag bearers of truth; no one really expects them to be objective, but expecting that they be aware of why they peddle a certain agenda isn't really all that much.

Nadiyah | 13 years ago | Reply 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 !

Moazzam Salim | 13 years ago | Reply hats off to the writer....well said sir

Hamza Malik | 13 years ago | Reply Very good article. And very objective i must say!

Tilsim | 13 years ago | Reply Quite a lot of improvement can be achieved if media editors ensure just facts and their surrounding informaton is reported. However, in order to sell news and to support their political sponsors, they embellish this with opinion. That's possibly an acceptable compromise as long as we have full and proper disclosure of their political sponsors.

SadafFayyaz | 13 years ago | Reply 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.........

Saad Durrani | 13 years ago | Reply When we want objective, we want someone to talk on our side. Systematically, any Pakistanmi channel is ranting the same propaganda as the one they do in the West. The 'spot-fixing' controversy could have been contained if the media would have the original source of the news. News of the World is a tabloid, dishing out dirt every week to sell their papers. They came out again one Sunday and our media totally believed. I did not see any channel telling people that News of the World is not a credible source and we all need to chill. Again, when we want "objectivity", what we want is a humane practice. Showing the lynching, stoning, and flogging videos all over again and again is not freedom. Showing the head of suicide bomber is not objectivity, its just inhumane. A responsible news network does report the both sides. CNN while reporting the Terry Jones incident also reported a church in USA which allowed Muslims to pray in their premises.

Ahmad Ali | 13 years ago | Reply 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....

Shibil | 13 years ago | Reply Objectivity may impossible, but hopefully there is an ethical line between a lie of commission and omission. Part of the frustration with media in Pakistan attributed to lack of "objectivity" is possibly about lack of context and, often about outright misreporting. E.g. though one hopes the body of an article (if not the headline) will report why the Taliban chose to blow up a school (i.e. provide context, whether or not one agrees with it), there would be no excuse for misreporting a school was blown up when it still stands (a practice adopted by some of the biggest Pakistani networks). Great article, and much needed. Though the quote attributed to Robert Fisk is actually Fisk quoting Amira Hass - its seems to be a popular quote this week :).

Replying to X