When people talk about media objectivity, they talk about a media free of bias. An objective new story is seen as one where the reporter discusses both sides of the story and keeps his or her own opinion out of the story completely. But is pure objectivity possible? Here's a brief look at the history of objective journalism-- and some constraints that make pure objectivity a goal that's difficult to achieve.
Most people don't realize that objective journalism is actually a style of writing. Before the 20th century, unbiased news was not the norm in most newspapers. Newspapers would have a specific bias that everyone was aware of, and news stories openly reflected the paper's bias. The language used in newspaper articles was much more descriptive and emotional than it was today.
Objective journalism became more popular in the late 19th century, and has become the norm today. Objective news stories are written using the inverted pyramid. This is a formulatic writing style where the most important facts (who, what, where, when,why, and how) are listed first, followed by facts that are of less and less importance. Objective journalism is characterized by descriptive, simple language that gets to the point and is not emotional.
Objective journalism fits today's modern culture. People often read or watch just a portion of a news story before hurrying off to do the next thing, so the inverted pyramid allows people to get the jist of the story without reading or watching the whole thing. In contrast, people used to read newspapers cover to cover, so articles that read more like creative writing worked better in older newspapers.
Whether pure objectivity is possibe is a matter of debate. It certainly is a goal of many working journalists. Here are some constraints that make pure objectivity very difficult
At every news outlet, someone has to decide which stories to include and which to leave out. This is especially true in television news, where so little information can fit in a 30 or 60 minute time block. The decision to not tell a story can affect public perception as much as the decision to tell it. It's very difficult to make a purely objective decision about what's newsworthy and what's not.
Are you going to put a story on the front page, or bury it on B17? The level of priority given to a news story makes a huge impact on the public's perception, and yet it's very difficult to make an objective decision about which stories are more important than others.
Someone always has to make a decision about how to tell a story, and this is also a very difficult decision to make objectivity. If you're covering a war, which part of the story do you tell? Do you talk about the soldiers? The civilians whose town is under fire? Do you talk about how prisoners of war have been tortured? Do you talk about the warm reception the military has received in some areas?
All of these approaches may be perfectly factual-- but there's no way a news outlet can cover all of this. The decision on how to frame, or tell, a story makes an impact on public perception as well.
Working journalists often struggle between conflicting demands in the newsroom-- the need to provide the public with newsworthy stories, and the need to produce stories that are marketable. A story might seem very important, but if it's one that might bore the public or might be too controversial, it may not get covered. These kinds of decisions are certainly subjective.
Most working journalists are committed to the principle of objectivity. They make a strong effort to report news free of bias that is as useful as possible to the public. However, the public needs to be aware of the constraints that make true objectivity a difficult goal, and consume news critically.