Transparency comes before objectivity

It’s a good point.

The eternal quest for objectivity nowadays seems to be a heartless quest to seek the approval of PR departments. And that distracts journalists from much more important matters, like muckraking and developing a story that matters to people and democracy.

Truth is vastly more important than opinion. That’s why there’s an OP ED page in newspapers, and it’s not at the front of the paper. I, for one, have scruples with the need for opinion in a document of journalism.

I could see how the “equal time” argument could be turned around, however, when it comes to the slanderous and indefensible behavior of AM radio shock-jocks. But really, what you wrote about truth still applies in that respect.

For me, objectivity is not the same as, and does not necessarily lead to, “he said she said” journalism, and it’s unfortunate that the former has been often perversed into the latter.

Objectivity is not about giving equal weight to all sides of an argument, but rather being able to temporarily detach yourself from your own convictions (and yes, people CAN do that if they actually want to) when weighing each side of an issue. The difference between objectivity and “he said she said” journalism is what happens next. If the evidence clearly leads to a conclusion that favors one side over the other, then you should report it as such. If, however, the evidence does not indicate a clear “winner”, then you should report the evidence and examine the strengths and weaknesses of each side’s argument without declaring a winner. The truth may not be in the middle, but it also isn’t always clear cut either.

I agree transparency is important, but I believe transparency should complement objectivity rather than displace it. For me, the point of providing transparency is to give readers context in which to evaluate your report, while the point of objectivity is to give readers as fair a report as possible. Saying “here’s what I believe in” should not alleviate journalists of the need to detach themselves from their own beliefs when examining an issue. Without that initial detachment, the burden of proof will always be greater for the side that runs counter to the reporter’s beliefs, and that quashes the chances of the reporter conducting a fair evaluation of each side’s argument. The conclusion should come at the end of the examination process, not the beginning.

To your statement –”But no matter how we define objectivity, transparency should be the key to what modern journalism is about.”–I would like to add the maxim, “Methods, not people, are objective.”

Measurements, documents, photos, videos, the care to speak to many sources from all sides–these are methods that create objective information. In other words, if someone is 6 feet tall, and you report it accurately, it does not matter if you are biased, the fact remains true. Disclosures of bias–and methods used– are all part of transparency.

At StinkyJournalism.org, we try to be objective but recognize that unconscious bias can always be at play–so we depend on using good methods in our investigations. We even try to seek out novel methods for forensic examinations of questionable reportage.

For example, in our recent Jared Diamond/New Yorker debunking we thought the quotations seemed fake but took the extra step to consult a linguist, Dr. Doug Biber, whose expertise is measuring the differences between written and spoken language is widely recognized. He measured the New Yorker quotes and confirmed that in all likelihood the quotations were “academic writing” not spoken words.

If you are interested read more here—”Did Daniel Wemp Really Say That?” http://www.stinkyjournalism.org/latest-journalism-news-updates-157.php

[...] way the craft is practiced. The notion of objectivity has been dismissed by many as unattainable, passionless, cowardly, and even as “the view from nowhere”. An increasingly popular currency for [...]