Objectivity in Journalism

Steven Maras

• Publisher: Polity
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9780745663920
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Journalism
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

Objectivity in journalism is a key topic for debate in media, communication and journalism studies, and has been the subject of intensive historical and sociological research. In the first study of its kind, Steven Maras surveys the different viewpoints and perspectives on objectivity. Going beyond a denunciation or defence of journalistic objectivity, Maras critically examines the different scholarly and professional arguments made in the area. Structured around key questions, the book considers the origins and history of objectivity, its philosophical influences, the main objections and defences, and questions of values, politics and ethics. This book examines debates around objectivity as a transnational norm, focusing on the emergence of objectivity in the US, while broadening out discussion to include developments around objectivity in the UK, Australia, Asia and other regions.

1

Why and when did journalistic objectivity arise?

Perhaps no question is as central to an understanding of objectivity in journalism than that of its origins. Objectivity in journalism cannot be traced to a single ‘magic moment’ (Schudson 2001: 167). Media historians have put ‘great man’ versions of history into disrepute, questioning the fetish of singular origins (Winston 1999). Nevertheless, ‘why and when did objectivity arise?’ remains an essential context question without which our understanding of objectivity in journalism will lack a link to history and culture. However, the question of origins is a challenging one, both on the level of the factors driving the development of objectivity and also the dating of objectivity. This chapter teases out the debates around these two core issues.

What follows draws extensively on the work of James W. Carey, Michael Schudson and Daniel Schiller, as some of the foremost historians of objectivity in the US. But it also weaves into the discussion significant work by Stuart Allan in News Culture (2004); Stephen J. A. Ward in The Invention of Journalism Ethics: The Path to Objectivity and Beyond (2004); Richard L. Kaplan in Politics and the American Press: The Rise of Objectivity, 1865–1920 (2002); Gerald J. Baldasty in The Commercialization of News in the Nineteenth Century (1992); and Robert A. Hackett and Yuezhi Zhao in Sustaining Democracy? Journalism and the Politics of Objectivity (1998), all of which engage deeply, and often divergently, with the same research questions even if their projects are different.

The drivers of journalistic objectivity

Objectivity in journalism emerges out of a complex of factors. A full account of these factors immediately confronts the two key issues discussed in detail in the introduction, the difficulty of studying objectivity in journalism across cultures, and the treatment of the US case.

Several arguments have been put forward to explain the development of journalistic objectivity in the US and beyond. Building on Allan (2010: 28) and Michael Schudson (1978), the key arguments that will be discussed here have to do with professionalization, technology, commercialization and politics. None stands as a clear master-narrative and all of them have been contested, or subject to further work. These arguments work in quite general, deterministic and abstract ways; and in that sense they have limitations. Nevertheless, they remain useful in forming a broader picture of the different forces at work in the development of objectivity in journalism.

While my focus in the discussion that follows will be on the US case, which has been explored in depth by media historians, each of these ‘drivers’ point to broader research trajectories that can be drawn on to open up wider analysis of objectivity in journalism, regardless of national context. It should be stressed I am not advocating a point of view that objectivity was an ‘inevitable outcome’ of any of these particular forces (Schudson & Anderson 2009: 92). Rather, surveying the different arguments allows us to engage with the complex forces influencing journalistic objectivity, and to explore their interaction.

The professionalization argument

This argument sees professionalization of reporting as a key factor in the emergence and development of objectivity. As such it is tied in with standards of good practice and the status of journalism. Professionalism and professionalization are themselves large areas of study. Surveying the literature, Michael Schudson and Chris Anderson chart an important disciplinary orientation away from ‘traits’-based research that seeks to determine whether journalism is or is not a profession on the grounds of its knowledge base and area of expertise, towards an approach that looks at the conditions and circumstances ‘in which journalists attempt to turn themselves into professional people’ (2009: 90).

The professionalization argument is often localized around the state of reporting in major US cities in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (see Baldasty 1992: 89). As journalists came to consider themselves professionals, the issue of an appropriate model of professionalism arose, with objectivity playing a key role (Janowitz 1975: 618). ‘Best practice’ suggested the reporter presents the facts, preferably covering all sides of the issue, allowing the reader to decide (although there is disagreement over whether this represents the highest standard of professional performance; Carey 1997 [1969]: 138).

The argument that objectivity emerges and develops through professionalization is powerful because it helps explain the nature of modern journalism, but also the context in which it operates. Professionalization is considered a pre-requisite for, but also the goal of, debates around objectivity. Another strong aspect of the professionalization argument is that it foregrounds issues of occupational and industrial uplift and integrity: it allows us to think of objectivity in progressive ethical terms such as virtue, standards and excellence. It permits us to focus on issues of education. It also works in relation to concepts of objectivity as an ideal (Schudson 1978; see below).

Carey provides one of the most useful characterizations of the professionalization argument in the following passage:

Objective reporting became the fetish of American journalism in the period of rapid industrialisation. Originally the development of this form of journalism was grounded in a purely commercial motive: the need of the mass newspaper to serve politically heterogeneous audiences without alienating any significant segment of the audience. The practice apparently began with the wire services. . . . This commercially grounded strategy of reporting was subsequently rationalized into a canon of professional competence and ideology of professional responsibility. (Carey 1997 [1969]: 137–8)

Servicing ‘politically heterogeneous audiences’ demanded a radically new commercial approach that was (for Carey) subsequently rationalized into an image of the professional (see also Bennett 1988: 123).

Why did this rewriting occur? Carey suggests that in the late nineteenth century reporters were trained largely under an apprenticeship system and reporting was seen as a trade. Professionalization was part of an effort by journalists to gain increased status, credibility and, indeed, trust. The pay-off for professionalization can be seen as social, but also corporate. Objectivity marked the work of journalists as organizationally distinctive, more highly developed; news was special, and different from advertising (which itself forms a kind of news). Objectivity arises in this work situation as what has been described as a kind of contract: it is a ‘bargain’ in which ‘journalists gain their independence and in exchange they give up their voice’ (Rosen 1993: 48; see also Hallin & Mancini 2004: 221; Gans 1979: 183; McDonald 1975 [1971]: 69).

With college training, journalists had greater appreciation and awareness of scientific values and developed what could be seen as a worship of facts (Schudson 1978: 68). Objectivity at this time was sweeping across a number of academic disciplines, and justifying journalism in social science terms thus proved attractive as a means of gaining institutional legitimacy (Beasley & Mirando 2005: 184). The emergence of journalism schools cemented the link between an emphasis on facts and science and new models of journalism. As Carey puts it, the ‘conventions of objective reporting were institutionalized when they were developed in universities beginning in the 1890s’ (1997 [1969]: 138). In a unique alignment of interests, ‘the press moved to show the public that it was serious about improving practices by bolstering professional training and enacting codes of ethics’, while educators sought to meet the demand for ‘reporters who were ethically sensitive as well as technically proficient’ by focusing on journalistic ethics (Ferré 2009: 19; see also Vos 2012). In this manner, objectivity was fast-tracked as a way to characterize the profession, as well as indicating a point of mutual interest for practitioners and educationalists.

One of the benefits of the professionalization thesis is that it links objectivity to broader social change: firstly, to what James W. Carey terms the ‘communications revolution’ and, secondly, to the rise of professions. In relation to the former, Carey sees this ‘as a revolution in commercial and popular culture which reorganized the basis on which art, information, and culture were made available’ (1997 [1969]: 129). It leads to the rise of a national media and a ‘mass’ audience but also the emergence of a ‘new social role’ which Carey terms the ‘professional communicator’. ‘The professional communicator takes the messages, ideas, and purposes of a source and converts them into a symbolic strategy designed to inform or persuade an ultimate audience’ (1997 [1969]: 133). Advertising executives, public relations practitioners and journalists all qualify as professional communicators, albeit with different degrees of professional autonomy and freedom.

In terms of the rise of the professions, in the late 1890s to early 1900s, US society, especially the new middle classes, underwent a widespread professionalization (Wiebe 1967: 127; see also Bledstein 1976). The growth of university education in journalism, and rise of professional associations, gave further impetus to professionalization (Carey 1997 [1969]: 136). Skills and cultivated talent became the new basis for social order. With professionalization came the need to define a field and assume authority or control over a discipline.

One significant aspect of the professionalization argument is that it can be studied focusing on positive, but also negative impacts. Indeed, Carey’s account of professionalization is important precisely because he points to its adverse effects.

It is important to recognize that the canons of objective reporting turn the journalist into a professional communicator, from an independent observer and critic to a relatively passive link in a communication chain that records the passing scene for audiences. (1997 [1969]: 138)

For Carey, objectivity impacts on the literary and interpretive aspects of journalistic work. He writes of a ‘conversion downwards’ whereby the ‘role is de-intellectualized and technicalized’ into a mere reporter (1997 [1969]: 137). Objectivity compromises the independence of the journalist, giving new prominence to sources. This leads the reporter into a subservient and technical ‘lapdog’ relationship to political and corporate authority (Kaplan 2002: 193). For Daniel C. Hallin and Paolo Mancini, the dominant form of professionalism in North America has a particular impact on the autonomy of the journalist. Objectivity has a key place in placing boundaries on autonomy in a way that is not replicated in the UK, for example (2004: 226).

There are three main weaknesses in the professionalization argument. The first is its explanatory power. As Dan Schiller notes, ‘journalistic professionalism can not constitute a sufficient explanation for the appearance of the convention’ (1981: 3). Which is to say that commercial, technological and political factors are equally important to the development of objectivity.

This is related to a second issue, raised by Schudson, which is that journalism is an ‘uninsulated profession’ lacking the forms of advanced training and social control that other professions use to protect their autonomy. Unlike professions such as medicine or law, journalism is a difficult occupation to ‘close off’ intellectually and in practice, and it has an unusually ‘public’ relationship to the client and to politics. This ‘uninsulated’ character impacts on the professional status of journalism, and constantly complicates professional aspiration.

A third issue with the professionalization argument is that it tends to treat the space of journalism as uniform: publishers, editors and reporters are seen more or less on equivalent terms, when in fact there exists significant levels of criticism and negotiation between these different actors in ‘the profession’ (Tuchman 1972). There is a potentially wide gap between aspirational statements of codes of ethics and the lived reality of reporters and editors. In this respect, the professionalization argument requires a more critical account of labour politics. This is important, for example, to understand the 1930s when objectivity is linked to the struggle against unionization and organizational control. These conditions ‘gave publishers reason to promote the objectivity norm even if they had done little or nothing to invent it’ (Schudson 2001: 163; see also Morrison & Tremewan 1992: 124). Hallin and Mancini highlight how, in this context, ‘objectivity provided a mechanism of control over journalists’ (2004: 221).

The technology argument

Advocates of the technology argument see technology as a key causal factor in the development of objectivity in journalism. Technology has been an ever-present consideration for journalism. As Allan notes, ‘the use of the steam press in the 1830s was followed by the introduction of the Hoe rotary press in 1846, thereby enabling the mass production of newspapers on a scale never seen before’ (2010: 35). Perhaps no technology has been given greater significance than the telegraph, which is closely intertwined with a shift in our understanding of communication and geography, the development of national railway systems, and the dissemination of market information and commercial news (Carey 1989: 201–30; Pray 1855: 364). Introduced in the 1840s, with the first inter-city experiments in wiring stories dating from 1844, the telegraph rapidly found a place in news transmission. The Mexican–American War (1846–48) gave impetus to its use (Allan 1997: 305), as did the founding of the news cooperatives such as The Associated Press in 1946. For Donald L. Shaw, in a study of Wisconsin newspapers that is regarded as a keystone of the technology argument, ‘increasing emphasis upon impartial gathering and reporting of news’ and ‘growing independence from party control’ correlate with ‘increasing amounts of wire news’ (1967: 4).

However, there is another layer of the technology argument, specifically focused on written language and the form of journalism itself. Indeed, perhaps one of the most valuable aspects of the technological thesis is to encourage reflection on our understanding of the form of the news (see Conboy 2010: 137–8). The wire services supposedly led to a lean, unadorned ‘objective’ style; a form of writing stripped of locality, regional touches and colloquialisms. This is understandable given that the price per character was one cent (Kielbowicz 1987: 35). Wires employed factual, denotative and functional language, leaning towards the inverted pyramid form. Andrew Porwancher suggests that ‘because telegraph lines were expensive and often failed in mid-report, journalists transmitted the most important information first so that their papers could still print the stories even if they failed to receive all of them. Editors also preferred the standardized format of the inverted pyramid because they could easily rework an article’ (2011: 191).

Carey argues ‘the telegraph reworked the nature of written language’ but also ‘the nature of awareness itself’ (1989: 210). Over time, our sense of the facts became linked to this informational form of language, so that we know ‘the facts’ mainly through this ‘code’. As a result, the language of news becomes standardized, which is to say that different styles of reportage and storytelling no longer counted for news in the same way. ‘By elevating objectivity and facticity into cardinal principles, the penny press abandoned explanation as a primary goal’ (Carey 1997 [1986]: 161). This style has limits: it restricts the extent to which one can express a perspective in the story, or explore the world as an essayist might (see White 2000). It sets up explanation and analysis as separate activities and, in doing so, dampens reflection on alternative framings of the story, as well as overt reflection on factors such as ideology, class or politics.

Carey’s work is commonly associated with the technology argument. Although he is no straightforward advocate, his research into journalism history, technology and communication takes him deeply into the topic. Carey highlights how the wire services stripped the local, the regional and the colloquial away from journalism, demanding something closer to the scientific or informational mode of journalism. He famously states ‘the origins of objectivity may be sought, therefore, in the necessity of stretching language in space over the long lines of Western Union’ (1989: 210).

There are risks with a technologically deterministic account of social change; namely that it can discount other factors. One might think that the speed of information being sent over a news wire would lead to a new emphasis on timely information, the latest news. But it was the penny press that promoted the move towards the daily news, and a focus on timeliness and breaking stories as a selling point. It was through the penny press that all news started to be treated as though it came out of a stock market ticker machine. As Carey puts it, ‘the telegraph cemented everything the “penny press” set in motion’ (1997 [1986]: 160). Nevertheless, while we should remain wary of technological determinism – and indeed some have called for a re-examination of the idea that objective reporting was the result of increased use of telegraph and news wires (Stensaas 1986: 58) – the technology argument highlights often-neglected organizational arrangements, such as the way correspondents become ‘stringers’ who supply bare facts, and issues to do with the increased volume of news (see Carey 1997 [1986]: 160–1).

Some caveats should be placed around the technology argument. The first has to do with the assumptions regarding the technology. Early services were not restricted to the telegraph, but combined pony express, stagecoach and telegraph (Pyle 2005). Richard L. Kielbowicz describes the telegraph evocatively as a ‘tangle of technologies’ (1987: 34). ‘Even in the face of instantaneous communication by telegraph, the comparatively primitive postal service continued to be of great value as a news relayer’ (1987: 26). The language of dispatches could vary depending on the rate and time of day, from simply dropping common words such as ‘the’, to inverted pyramids, to in fact adding details (Schiller 1981: 5). Indeed, biased and false dispatches were known to be sent (Schiller 1981: 4; see also Sinclair 1919: 150–75). On top of this, it was accepted journalistic practice of the era, as Edwin Shuman explains in one of the first handbooks on journalism, to turn bare announcements into articles by supplying ‘the missing details from … [one’s] imagination’ (1894: 120). In other words, the introduction of the telegraph did not occur in a vacuum and did not lead to a total uniformity in style and format.

A second caveat has to do with the risk of confusing the technology with the development of cooperative newsgathering associations, the history and development of which are complex (see Shaw 1967: 9). For Edwin Eme...