Tag: objectivity

Subjectivity in journalism

Subjectivity reinforces objective stances of journalists

Journalists are asked to remain objective in their reporting, at risk of losing credibility and blurring the truth. But if journalists are to tell the truth, how can they deliver truthful stories if they are required to remain detached from the issue they are covering?

Journalism has evolved, while still upholding a dichotomy between objectivity and subjectivity. Either the story is fair, balanced, and neutral; or engaged, one-sided and biased. There is no grey area when it comes to news reporting. There is no room for an in-between.

Newscasting would gain integrity considering subjective stances to complement objectivity. Journalistic standards of neutrality can coexist along with personal insights.

Iowa State University professor of journalism Michael Bugeja said, “Objectivity is seeing the world as it is, not how you wish it were.”

Objectivity is essential in news making. However, it has its limitations, which subjectivity can help make up for.

Hence, journalism has to rethink objectivity to make it possible for journalists to elaborate their expertise beyond detached reporting: journalists must be encouraged to embrace their biases.

In their book Reckoning: Journalism’s Limits and Possibilities, Candis Callison and Mary Lynn Young explain how objectivity has roots in social order and relations of power that privilege some conventions over others. When journalists situate themselves from within the story, they have a stronger capacity to recognize what is “really” happening.

Objectivity reinforces dominant ideals and hides marginalized realities. When journalists seek neutrality and fairness, they sometimes censure and leave out aspects of a story. It empowers specific perspectives and excludes many potential paths to explore.

Journalists’ experiences strengthen the accuracy of their stories. Carol Linnitt, co-founder of The Narwhal, interviewed Callison for the article “Who tells the story of the present”. Callison explains how facts have a history and tie with different ethics. Objective stances sometimes fail to dig deeper into those multiple truths. Journalists must look beyond the statement itself to understand its meaning. In other words, when journalists personally commit to an issue, they gain the capacity to acknowledge which perspectives to scrutinize and whose voices to uplift.

When it comes to sources, subjective awareness also reinforces journalistic language. News stories are impersonal when journalists stick to the facts for the sake of detachment and fairness. Journalists even maintain a distance from their sources to deliver “neutral” portrayals, dehumanizing the sources themselves. For news to be representative and truthful, they must engage with sources, especially when they are marginalized.

As journalists prefer the role of the observer over the participant, they fail to humanize their subjects. Andrew Sayer, social sciences scholar from Lancaster University, explains how emotions, values, and the rationale make sense only when they come together. The subjective defines an integral part of our identity and how we understand the world. Journalists can only truly depict someone or something if they associate them with other’s truths. There is an immersive element that is crucial here and does not compromise objectivity but rather complements it.

Subjectivity allows journalists to extend their stories beyond factual events, exploring various angles of a particular issue and allowing them to be more grounded in reality. News has multiple truths, and biases enable us to navigate across those various languages.

Going back to Linnitt’s piece, the interviewee, Callison, shared how claims of objectivity normalize one singular truth by using the example of the Wet’suwet’en people mobilizing against the Coastal GasLink pipeline. Mainstream media outlets would name the Wet’suwet’en community “protesters.” But if they have never ceded their lands, is it fair to refer to them as such? Is it neutral to assume their behaviours? Sometimes, what we think to be objective is far from being the truth for others. Considering external realities contributes to deconstructing standardized perceptions. And yet, it requires concerns of subjectivity.

Stories need to be personified and less frigid. It is no coincidence that podcasts are so prominent these days: personal narratives contribute to connecting the audience with more emotions and agency. Storytelling enables journalists to share experiences and connect with people so they can make sense of ongoing events. In the article “Personal narrative journalism and podcasting,” Mia Lindgren, professor at Swinburne University of technology and editor for the Radio Journal: International Studies in Broadcast & Audio Media, suggests how subjective discourses allow the audience to witness experiences and relate to stories. It facilitates understanding and enforces empathy.

Journalistic institutions have the power over headlines; they decide how stories will be told and whose voices will be included. Journalism shapes the way society perceives the world. Hence, journalism must revisit objective narratives to include subjective stances, so subjectivity could coexist along with impartiality among news reporting. That being said, we still have ways to go in rethinking objectivity.

Initially, objective stances were proposed to deliver quick and concise facts to the audience. It is still predominant in journalistic practices as an efficient method to get to the point easily. As Brent Cunningham, managing editor of the Columbia Journalism Review, suggests in “Re-thinking Objectivity,” the concept also excuses “lazy reporting,” facilitates short deadlines, and protects journalists from the related consequences of stories.

But the truth is, stories are much more complex than facts and numbers. They involve multiple parties with various motives and tie back to messy backgrounds. And subjectivity enables us to dig deeper into those structures.

 

Graphic by Alexa Hawksworth

Categories
Opinions

I’m a journalist and an activist. Deal with it

In September, the Global Climate Strike took the world by storm with approximately 7.6 million people marching for climate action.

According to its organizers, this was the biggest climate mobilization in history. People sent a clear message to their governments: they expect climate action, and they expect it now. With approximately 500,000 people striking in Montreal, this was the largest strike in the city’s history, said Montreal Mayor Valérie Plante.

I was part of the march both as a journalist and an engaged citizen. I wonder if my objectivity could be discredited, since I personally share values with some climate activists and align myself with certain environmental movements.

Many journalists think it’s important to keep a distance from groups and movements, at the risk of losing credibility and thus the trust of readers. I’m aware that I have my own perspectives that impact the filter through which I view and describe events; and inevitably shades the, so to say, “truth.” However, I truly believe that being aware of these biases can only encourage me to be more objective and motivated to deliver the “truth.”

Objectivity is thought of as an absolute – journalists are either 100 per cent objective, or not at all. But in fact, journalists, like other human beings, are all subjective. They too, have their own interests, values, opinions and ideologies. I believe that, consciously or not, these values shape who they are, what they think and how they act as citizens as well as journalists. My personal interests are based on environmental and social issues and I believe in climate change and the need to act now. The planet is the number one subject I want to report on and I believe my interests and experiences in this field can add value to my journalism.

There is also this fantasy that journalists are independent and serve only the public. In theory, journalism is meant to deliver the truth and help the readers make their own opinion about the world, beyond the influence of any source of power, such as the government or private companies. I believe that in reality, even the most conscientious and cautious journalist can be influenced either by powerful sources or by various situations. For example, influences may come from the political views of the news organization the journalist works for.

Moreover, in my opinion, there are always two – if not more – sides to a story. The concept of “balance” can give you the impression that both sides should always be covered equally. But should they really? Journalists can sometimes give equal voice to people of unequal knowledge. For example, when covering stories linked to the constant debate on the existence of a climate urgency, journalists tend to grant equal importance to both scientists and global warming sceptics. Fearful of being seen as biased or discriminating certain opinions, they sometimes don’t help but confuse and mislead the public opinion.

Also, depending on deliberate choices concerning the materials used to depict an event or news, such as the composition of the pictures taken during a protest or the words used to describe the event, journalists can convey different sides of a story. They may do it unconsciously as they are sometimes just following news conventions, like publishing a picture showing the one violent demonstrator in a peaceful protest. It makes a more compelling photo than showing peaceful marchers, but I don’t think this depicts the actual event as it happened. I believe it is part of the journalists’ job to break barriers between people of different opinions and not only share what people do, but why they do it.

As part of my studies as well as my personal interests, I decided to join an environmental movement last July, to better understand activism and its link to journalism. Born in France, known for its revolutionary people, I had never joined any protest or any march before and had always thought protesters were very different from me. But the more I started attending protests, the more I realized how alike we were. This made me realize that there is a very powerful stereotype among the public opinion concerning activism. More and more, I could see that activism was often portrayed as violent, and activists as harmful troublemakers.

On the other hand, when I went to protests myself, I could see how peaceful they actually were and how cautious they had to be to fight against this misinterpretation commonly held in the public opinion that they’re the ones messing with the system. I believe journalists matter in this, since they have a certain influence on the public opinion.

Journalists decide what is news. Journalists are the ones to attach relative importance to news events. Readers interpret those events through the language that journalists choose to constitute their coverage. 

It’s obviously very difficult to leave my personal interests out of my work life, and I think that it’s a journalist’s responsibility to have integrity in their work. There will always be an inherent link between the authenticity of my work and my values, and it would be hypocritical to hide it. I strongly believe that if I acknowledge my personal interests, am conscious that I may have biased first reactions but am willing to try my best to deliver factual reports, I should not be considered any differently than other reporters, and I believe my knowledge of the ecological crisis can make me even better equipped to talk about such issues.

 

Photo by Britanny Clarke

Categories
Opinions

A lesbian journalist’s guide to objectivity

As a journalist whose existence is inherently political, presenting myself as politically neutral feels impossible.

I began questioning the idea that this was achievable during the first semester of my journalism major. During a lecture on social media guidelines, a professor argued that professional journalists were expected to be neutral online and that our profiles, public as well as private, should be used with precaution. In their defence, the stance of journalistic neutrality is a topic that is still being debated today. The same professor then put up their Twitter and Facebook profile which were both free from any personal news and opinion: a journalist with no identity.

I glanced to my right and then quickly to my left anticipating a reaction from my peers. I still don’t know whether I was the only one bothered by what we were being told, or if other students were just better at keeping a neutral expression. All I know is that in that moment I felt distressed because I knew that as a lesbian, my identity is anything but neutral.

That is not to say that my sexual orientation would ever interfere with my ability to report on stories which overlap with my sexual identity, but rather that no matter how objective my coverage may be, my identity is and always remains a political statement. Am I not to post photos of my girlfriend and I on Instagram? Would Tweeting about The L Word someday get me reprimanded?

The Canadian Press has come up with a set of rules for journalists to follow on social media platforms. “Journalists should not make reference in their profiles to any political affiliations, nor should they post material that could be construed as expressing a political opinion.” This prompts me to ask, how can we expect any member of a marginalized community, whether they’re Indigenous, black, trans, disabled or anyone in between, to be neutral when faced with a story that debates over their own humanity? The simple answer is that we can’t and we shouldn’t.

Trans man and freelance journalist, Lewis Wallace, made headlines in 2017 after he was fired for publishing a post on Medium in which he suggested journalists have to rethink objectivity. “The idea that I don’t have a right to exist is not an opinion,” stated Wallace. “It is a falsehood.” It’s true that journalists have a duty to serve the public, but this doesn’t have to come at the expense of their beliefs, nor should it force them to repress any part of their identity.

Like most journalists on Twitter, my bio consists of a list of my different titles: photo editor, student, journalist, etc.. But contrary to the majority of journalists, my bio also includes “proud lesbian.” A statement that directly breaks the rules meant to be followed by journalists across the country.

In my case, passing as straight is no obstacle – in fact, more often than not people assume that I am – this gives me the privilege to present myself however I see fit. I choose to present myself as a lesbian woman because that is who I am and no matter how hard I try, I cannot seperate myself from my identity, nor do I want to.

As former New York Times columnist Tom Wicker said: “We’re human beings first and journalists second; otherwise there’s something entirely wrong with us.”

 

Categories
Opinions

Objecting to objective reporting

Graphic by Alexa Hawksworth.

When people think of journalism, they might think of gathering information and disseminating objective, balanced news stories to the public. Or, at least, that’s what they used to think. It’s unrealistic to assume that something as fast-paced as the journalism industry would never experience change. History shows that it has—and that it will. We at The Concordian think it is time to embrace a new change: the fact that objectivity in journalism does not exist. It has never existed.

To be objective means to not be influenced by personal feelings or opinions when considering and representing facts. To do so is not humanly possible. We are all shaped and influenced by our identity—our culture, our community, our lived experiences. These things inevitably affect how we see the world.

What has long been referred to as objectivity in journalism is simply the perception of the world through the eyes of the people who dominated newsrooms: straight, cisgender, white men. Objective reporting did not mean feelings or opinions did not influence the way stories were analyzed and told. It simply meant that stories were solely analyzed and told using a historically dominant lens. This is not acceptable.

It is time for journalists to acknowledge the factors that influence their storytelling. And to realize that these influences are not necessarily bad things. Allowing writers from various marginalized communities—be they women, people of colour, members of the LGBTQ+ community—to draw on their knowledge and experiences opens up inclusive dialogues and brings different perspectives to the table. It would allow journalists to tell stories everyone can relate to—not just some people.

Of course, that isn’t to say that facts and truth don’t exist. Journalism—or at least good journalism—should always be truthful and accurate. However, we must realize that even good journalism will never be completely objective. The way we place our quotes in a story, the people we interview, the headlines we choose and the way we edit all come from a subjective place in ourselves. Our thoughts affect the way we choose to tell a story, regardless of our efforts to remain objective. The truth is, no story is objective—and neither are we.

We at The Concordian think it’s time to approach journalism and research in a different way. It is time that we call out the injustices in the media industry and outline the ways we can begin to improve. Journalism schools around the world should begin to implement courses that discard the notion of objectivity as a defining element of journalism. The current standards of “equitable” reporting that we are being taught in school are not sufficient. Completely excluding our subjective experiences is not only wrong, it is impossible.

Research and reporting are human activities, therefore, they are messy and complicated. Most of the time, you cannot generalize research. The world is not an exact science. While there is truth and fact, there is no such thing as objectivity or neutrality in the way we see the world. To be better journalists and better people, we must take individual experiences into account. We must look to marginalized communities. We should seek to challenge the power structures in our societies rather than support them. We must use our research and reporting as a medium for social change, rather than social control.

Graphic by Alexa Hawksworth 

Exit mobile version