Journalistic Objectivity

I was talking with a young woman journalist, probably in her late 20’s, Friday morning, who believes a professional journalist must be objective and not express her own fact based point of view (POV). I agree with this in theory, but naturally do not see it as a dichotomy, an either/or - either objectivity or POV; but as a continuum, a both/and, with POV at one end and Objectivity at the other. Seen this way it is possible for pro journalists to be both objective and have a fact based POV, not an opinion, which they may be ethically and duty bound to express.

Pro journalists have an ethical obligation to use their positions in the public interest, for the good of the whole. Objectivity is a means to this end, not an end in itself. It is not in the public interest nor does it fulfill journalists’ ethical responsibility if they submerge their fact-based POVs, giving their allegiance instead to a mistaken concept of objectivity that gives equal weight to all sides, no matter what, even when the facts, not their opinions, tell journalists one side is incorrect.

Is it ethical and ‘objective’ to watch someone walking down the street about to step into a hole and hurt himself, to submerge one’s POV, keep silent and allow the person to fall into the hole? If a pro journalist’s fact based POV is to see the Nation heading for a hole, and journalists have an ethical obligation to use their positions in the public interest and for the good of all, is it ethical or ‘objective’ to submerge their POV and say nothing?

Submerging one’s fact based POV and not pointing out the obvious dangers, lies, hypocrisies and fear-mongering that one sees clearly in the name of so-called ‘objectivity’ is a cop-out. Submerging one’s fact based POV and not pointing out the obvious dangers, lies, hypocrisies and fear-mongering in the name of a so-called ‘objectivity’ that sees only two sides to every situation – which by the way is the dichotomy, the continuum sees many sides - is worse than a cop-out for it perpetuates a dysfunctional view of reality itself. Submerging one’s POV and believing that there are only two sides to ‘objectivity’, not only perpetuates the status quo, which clearly isn’t working and clearly is not in the best interests of society as a whole, it actually makes the status quo more negative.

Objectivity and ethics for journalists in today’s world, especially in the current American political and economic situation, would be presenting the ‘facts’ from all sides, not just the ‘official’ two sides, then having the courage to use their fact based POVs, not their opinions or ideologies, to warn us about the hole we are heading for. This is having both a strong, fact based POV and being objective. It is about fulfilling the journalists’ ethical requirement to serve the public interest by using the continuum, not the dichotomy.

I realize journalists work for big corporations and conglomerates that give hypocritical lip service to the dichotomous ‘objectivity’ while masking their own definite POVs and supporting their advertisers’ and sponsors’ POVs – which mostly support the status quo, and that it might cost journalists their jobs to be both objective in the both/and, continuum sense described here and share their fact based POVs. But let’s not kid ourselves, doing that would produce real and true ‘objectivity’, not the BS that passes for objectivity now. It would take courage for journalists to share both their fact based POV and shift to real true objectivity, but it might make a real difference to society, and constitute using their positions ethically and in the public interest.