Objectivity vs. Honesty

Julia Ross, Panel Topic: What are the benefits and drawbacks of objectivity versus engagement in journalism 

Main Points 

• What is objectivity?
• The benefits
• The drawback/limitations 
• Discussion Questions 

Objectivity: In my own words I argue that to be objective in the journalism world means to separate yourself from what you’re writing/reporting on. To not allow your own personal opinions, experiences, or biases to influence your work. The duty to be objective in journalism is  to write/report on the facts, as they are, without personal emotion, to allow for fairness to the reader to be informed on the subject and form their own opinion on it. 

The benefits: The benefits seem to be self explanatory - factual, non-biased, allow for your own opinion to form, allow for there to be trust from the reader that what they are being told is in reality what is actually happening. One of the ways to truly stay away from biased journalism, is to have the stories created from algorithms on computers. Scary thought for us future journalists, in a study done by the peer-reviewed journal Journalism Practice they had test subjects compare articles written by software and humans, and measured the results. The human written articles were rates as more well-written, interesting, and coherent, however the software generated articles were ranked as being more objective, informative, and trustworthy. This poses an odd balance between the benefits of objectivity with facts, and the engagement or attractiveness of written pieces

The drawbacks/limitations: For certain areas of journalism it seems to only be natural for engagement, it wouldn’t look right if there wasn’t. In regards to this I think of the balance between objectivity versus honesty. I began thinking of this balance after reading an interview on Vice with photojournalist, Moises Saman. He has done a large amount of his work photographing areas of the Middle East in times of crisis and has often been named a “war photographer.” In his area of work he argues that objectivity is irrelevant and that objectivity is not a true measure of a man’s work. He values honesty, he wants his work to be honest, show emotions, feelings, be real, and in that way he is reporting the “truth.” He also stated that for smaller assignments for a newspaper he could be more objective, but not for long term projects like his in the Middle East. However this got me thinking about how readers of newspapers/magazines are missing out on the purity, and connections to stories about whatever events are happening because the reporter is lacking a sense of honesty.

While looking through these images ask yourself is he actually being objective because he is reporting the “facts” or what is actually happening in these times of crisis. These images show the true emotions and provide proof not just words of what’s going on, so is that actually being objective? http://www.magnumphotos.com/C.aspx?VP3=CMS3&VF=MAGO31_10_VForm&ERID=24KL535GR6

Discussion Questions: Is it possible for a journalist to be both objective and honest in all areas of their work? Where could they/couldn’t they be? 

If there were no rules as to objectivity in journalism, say everything was written on pure “honesty” or feelings on an issue, what type of world would that create? Would that cause havoc? Could it even be dangerous? 

Links to sources: 

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/people-think-computers-are-more-trustworthy-journalists-than-humans

https://www.vice.com/read/moises-saman-interview-magnum-photography