Objectivity in Journalism, is it possible?

Objectivity has always been, and always will be, a contentious ethical issue in all aspects of journalism.

Although repeatedly stressed in codes of conducts for journalists, the ethical implications of objectivity are not ‘black and white’ as these codes might imply. Objectivity in journalism is a delicate matter which is influenced by a wide range of other elements.

The 'human element' is one obstruction to objectivity that permeates all aspects of journalism. The glaring questions is; can journalism ever be truly objective?

The basic principles of journalism rest on the idea that journalists have a responsibility to the truth and their readers, a matter stressed throughout journalistic codes of conduct worldwide.

Seemingly straightforward and obvious, the everyday challenges to this purist thought are highlighted in the second and third clauses of the International Journalists’ Code which states:

"[T]he journalist shall at all times defend the principles of freedom in the honest collection and publication of news, and of the right to fair comment and criticism."

"The journalist shall report only in accordance with facts of which he/she knows the origin. The journalist shall not suppress essential information or falsify documents."

Reporters face the ethical implications concerning objectivity, amongst other things, on a daily basis. Key to modern difficulties around objectivity are limited resources and time restrictions afforded to journalists. Budget cuts in all areas of media and increased web presence have meant that a smaller amount of reporters have to generate increased content.

The result of these developments is that journalists often now obtain their news from fewer sources, which creates limitations in balanced reporting. It is not uncommon for the same voices to be articulated throughout the media in regard to certain topics; these voices may make themselves readily available for media commentary and be convenient regular sources for journalist.

For example, when doing a story on gay rights, an Irish journalist might easily contact Senator David Norris, who is known to be media friendly and is likely to provide colourful and informed quotes for their story. But as an obvious source, Norris is also likely to be quoted in every paper or broadcast on the same topic.

Earlier this month Norris himself challenged this. Miriam Lord reported the outburst in the Irish Times, quoting Norris, she wrote;

"If I am permitted to be heard by being reported,” he said sulkily, “I wish to point out that I initiated and ran successfully two businesses in this city for many years, yet in many quarters I seem to be heard only if I am talking about James Joyce or buggery, and I am fed up to my back teeth with it."

Here it is recognised that certain voices are consistently used in Irish media as sources for particular stories and it is a point highlighted by Damien Kiberd too;

"It is not easy to achieve balance, particularly given the depressing lack of diversity in the dominant viewpoints in the media, whether it be on television, on radio, or in newspapers."

This lack of pluralism in perspective can not be blamed on one unique factor, but a combination of many, including; laziness on journalist’s part, personal motivations, political motivations but perhaps most commonly, time restrictions.

However, the implications of the continuous use of single sources in news reportage results in a lack of diverse representation and the dominance of singular perspectives throughout the media.

The BBC is widely considered a fair example of objective reporting. Its Producers’ Guidelines reflect this intention,

"Due impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC. All BBC programmes and services should be open-minded, fair and show a respect for truth. No significant strand of though should go unreflected or under-represented on the BBC."

"[The BBC is] explicitly forbidden from broadcasting its own opinions on current affairs or matters of public policy, except broadcasting policy."

Being a state body, the BBC must take extra precautions in broadcasting news, particularly in avoiding the filtering of news through “religious, racial or other types of prejudice.”

But this conscious impartiality has not always been lauded; there have also been instances of extreme objectivity, which as a result, do not project the truth.

Criticisms have arisen to over-impartiality in the BBC in particular.

For example, in 1969, house burnings in Belfast were covered by the BBC team, in one particular case it was a Loyalist gang who had set fire to a Catholic Nationalist’s home. But the BBC avoided mentioning which side committed the attack and which side was the victim, as a result the story was completely divorced of political leaning and de-politicised to the point of meaningless.

A former BBC journalist has been completely turned against the idea of impartial journalism; Martin Bell has said his experience of “bystander journalism” led him to believe that objectivity is an illusion and that it promotes the idea of morally neutral, dispassionate journalism that “closes hearts to pity”.

Indeed the inclusion of a journalist’s own engagement, (sometimes passionate, sometimes dispassionate) with news narratives is always a mediating factor in constructing news narratives.

News packages and reportage reports are filtered through the journalist’s perspective and baggage ― the search for ‘an angle’ to a story is indicative of how news is a construct and not a direct reflection of reality. As Tony Harcup writes, quoting Walter Lippman:

"Journalism is sometimes said to be a mirror reflecting society; on occasions, a distorting mirror. But journalism is not a simple reflection of everyday reality […] reporting is not the ‘simple recovery of facts’, because facts ‘do not spontaneously take a shape in which they can be known. They must be given a shape by somebody."

Reports are called ‘stories’ for a reason.

Media critic Karen Sanders argues that subjectivity is part of human condition but admittance of this subjectivity and by “recognising our role as interpreters”; we do not have to relinquish a commitment to truth. Sanders believes that implicit or explicit intentionality is unavoidable and agrees with Martin Bell by saying “truly neutral stories do not exist”.

It is a thought echoed by many journalists and media academics, including Chris Froot and Matthew Kierans . Froot goes as far to say to say although all journalists aim to objective, he hopes that a journalist, "would not be so deluded as to assume that that means they would, or even could, be objective."

Going by the hypothesis that objectivity is impossible by humans, it would seem that impartial news could only be provided by robots. Within continuous cuts in the media industry, perhaps this is where the future of journalism lies.