Objectivity -it is safe to assert- is one of the founding pillars of modern journalism. The news media mantra which declares that “comment is free but facts are sacred” (Allan, 2004:7) is as embedded within the newsroom as it has been questioned by many theorists –and journalists- over the years, not so much because of the value of the principles behind the premise, but rather due to its unrealistic pretensions (Miljan and Cooper, 2003: 41). The Dictionary of Media Studies (2006) defines objectivity as “the idea that news can and should be reported without opinion or bias” (p.161). This principle –although under scrutiny- is still today a pillar of journalism and –it has been argued- a necessity for society.
However, it wasn’t always the case that the news media considered their role as one of impartial public service, and in fact many theorists assert that the media of the late nineteenth century and the early twentieth century were highly partisan and often openly racist (Kaplan, 2001:2; Rhodes in Allan, 2005:31). The advent of the telegraph and the conformation of news agencies such as Associated Press, helped to challenge the function of the media and to develop a sense of professionalism among reporters, ever since their aim was to distribute the news to different media outlets -regardless of their own particular political affiliation- so these had to be as neutral as possible (Allan, 2004:17-18).
According to Kaplan (2001), by the 1920s “the press [had] changed from being a strenuous advocate and ally of the parties to a formally neutral and independent medium of public communication for, ideally, a whole range of political voices” (p.2). Restrepo (2001: 1-2) also acknowledges this particular epoch as one of decisive changes for the media and the journalistic profession. He traces this shift in the media consciousness towards a neutral journalism, to the editorial mandate of A.M. Rosenthal for the New York Times staff, which basically called journalists to strive at news reporting with as much objectivity as it was humanly possible. This fair and impartial approach to news gathering and reporting was later known as the ethics of objectivity, and was identified as a founding principle for the profession, as evidenced by the inclusion of objectivity in many codes of ethics for the media.
While on the one hand the advent of objectivity into the newsroom provides an opportunity for an impartial and fairer media, which arguably goes in favour of the democratic system and the betterment of society by giving equal voice and access to all thoughts and positions; on the other, some critics argue that objectivity is no more than an illusion of the media executed solely for their own gain. In this light, Kaplan (2001) asserts that “the nightmare forces of power, profit and ideology often intrude upon journalism’s democratic dreams and disturb its commitments to serve the public without fear or favour” (p.6). In fact, many theorists affirm that this hegemonic control has been somewhat enhanced by the increasing concentration of ownership of different forms of media as well as by the phenomenon of globalisation, which not only has expended greatly the reach of the media but also the expansion of the specific ideology they promote (Chomsky, in Marsh and Melville, 2008: 30).
In this context, one could ask whether the ethic of objectivity has still any validity in modern journalism, and what are the challenges –theoretical and practical- contesting its value.
[...] while avoiding the constraining, and fundamentally illogical, commitment formally espoused by much of the journalism community to ‘fair and impartial’ coverage of [...]