The Twilight of Objectivity - Kinsley On News Media

Slate founding editor Michael Kinsley offers up a thought provoking piece on objectivity in media today.

Objectivity—the faith professed by American journalism and by its critics—is less an ideal than a conceit. It's not that all journalists are secretly biased, or even that perfect objectivity is an admirable but unachievable goal. In fact, most reporters work hard to be objective and the best come very close. The trouble is that objectivity is a muddled concept. Many of the world's most highly opinionated people believe with a passion that it is wrong for reporters to have any opinions at all about what they cover. These critics are people who could shed their own skins more easily than they could shed their opinions.

Kinsley seems to almost be worrying if the long valued standard of objectivity will eventually disappear from news reporting altogether. He also appears to be pondering if that would be good or bad. But what struck me is that Kinsley is using an old, if still widely embraced, paradigm to grapple with emergent media. I'd respond by suggesting that, yes, in a very real sense, objectivity will disappear from the newsroom. And it's a truly wonderful thing.

We are just beginning to see the technology-enabled, true democratization of the news media. Ironically, MSM outlets have been struggling to pull people in, to get them more engaged in the news through various interactions, from polls to man on the street interviews, for years. Now, because of the Internet, lo and behold, the people are here - some of them, at least. And they are here of their own volition, which I understand can be a little intimidating for some in the old media. But that aside, what are the ramifications of this emerging trend, particularly as regards perceived objectivity in news reporting?

I'd submit that because more and more news reporting and analysis will be being done by individuals and smaller groups, it stands to reason that it will be less objective. The new news media will not simply be reporting the national discussion, political or otherwise, to people. The new news medium will be people having that discussion; it will be people involved in the news. Putting politics aside, just imagine the fellow on the rooftop of a burning building reporting that news today. You realize one could do just that if they had the right device with them. Would they be objective? Hell no! Would they be compelling? Hell, yes! They'd be describing events in between screaming for the damned fire truck to hurry up - but it would be news by any objective standard.

As for the notion of a broadly democratized and objective media, it's an impossible proposition. In effect, you would be asking too many people to give up their point of view for some amorphous concept called objectivity. It simply isn't going to happen. And there's no good reason to want it to, unless one is trapped in an old media paradigm.

The wonderful thing is that news, especially political news, will transform itself from simply reporting on the national discussion read argument, to actually being the discussion. Isn't it true that, more than even the noblest attempt at objectivity, actually seeing and hearing the discussion on complex news issues will more fully inform? I believe it will. In essence, objectivity will be achieved through exposure to alternate points of view. And the notion that a minority perspective will be drowned out isn't relevant, technology will empower anyone with a point of view to be heard, or to access the news they want to hear, read or watch.

However, if the facts, arguments and suppositions underlying a source are not solid, or those perceptions are deemed faulty by too vast a majority of the American people, the source will fall out of the national discussion through a lack of viability. And they should.

Air America comes to mind, but I don't want to make this a political tract. Back to the point at hand.

Why would anyone seriously interested in their news want to only sit back and allow someone to simply spoon feed them something which they could see, read, write, and even touch for themselves to assess its validity? More and more truly engaged people will opt out of the passive mode when given the option. Their focusing on seemingly more opinionated fare today is only a first stage of that transition.

Consequently, news reporting is going to look more and more subjective, especially to individuals already holding an opposite perspective from this or that particular media individual or organization. But that subjective reporting will encounter other subjective reporting and the clash of ides which is really democracy will more and more take place right out in the open for public view.

Clearly, it's already happening now, with more and more MSM outlets reporting what they see through blogs - and often very subjective blogs at that. The Hotline's Blogometer is a terrific example, though the MSM does more and more similar types of reporting, too.

Will there still be a big media? Absolutely. It will always exist because there will be a huge number of individuals who either choose to not, or simply cannot directly access a more democratic means for their news. A critical caveat - such people, though likely not huge consumers of news in the first place, will be many, nonetheless, and offer a significant market based on mass.

Another way to think about this is that, big media will exist, but along with significantly extending its network, even while trimming at the top, it will likely also become as much an aggregator as it is now a networker.

The top layer, or newsroom news, will increasingly be a more dry news media, reporting factually on that which others are feeding into it. And the best and the brightest up and coming reporters will likely gravitate to, not the anchor desk, but outside in the network of new media because it will empower them to report the news without the inhibition of objectivity. And if they are, as all should be, still constrained by the obligation to report the facts, and just the facts, what is the loss? All they need to do is ensure their facts stand up to scrutiny when weighed against those put forth by someone else.

Talk about competition! Now, isn't democracy in news reporting going to be a wonderful thing? Seriously, I personally think it is.

Comments

[MrsLevy]

Is this your WoPo application?

If so, you may have failed. The phrase "embraced, paradigm to grapple with emergent media" has been used too often by too many people. It's trite and common and makes me feel sleepy.

MrsLevy

[Dan]

As I said when you last posted, just about every conservative makes you think of crawling into bed. Webslut.

[lmg]

I don't agree that there will always be a big media. There hasn't always been a big media, so it can certainly fade away: Most young people don't seem to bother with newspapers, and the audience for the network evening newscasts consists of people in their 60's. Agregators will exist, and new ones will form to replace old ones. But we can already see that the newsroom is becoming redundant. When Michael Yon can file his reports on his own blog from somewhere in Iraq, making them available to everyone simultaneously, what is the purpose of a newsroom? I suppose it makes it possible for people to make a living finding and reporting news, which blogs have yet to do, but I'm sure something satisfactory will evolve over the next few years.

[Phoenix]

MrsLevy!

Where is Alma, your mater?? I do so want to embrace, paradigm, grapple, and emerge with her on my satin sheets!! I. have. been. waiting. for. that. wanton. wench. too. long. now. mmmmmm YUM!

Scrape the crust off her and tell me what WoPo is? Is that a backdoor licking Alma would enjoy?

[Phoenix]

I think what you're talking about is already happening/happened. For those of us interested enough, we check out several different news sources a day and pretty much get the scoop. The problem I see with dismissing all objectivity is that too many people rely on one news source, and if that news source is not objective, well neither is the information the bored viewer gets. Yeah, most people who are smart enough and interested enough are wired, but for those who aren't, they're stuck.

Here's a definition of OBJECTIVE REALITY: The person who can perceive of it is extremely rare. The rest of us live in a world composed of individual realities often our own personal ones. And the greater the extent to which they dominate our intellect, the poorer thinkers we are.

I know you are advocating the idea that with more subjectivity and 'real life' reporting, people will become engaged - as I think most Internet users are provided they visit several blogs - and I agree. It is like a constant stream of discourse. My only concern, and it's not that big of one, is there are plenty out there who don't surf and who do pay attention to the same old night after night to 'inform' them. At any rate, it's progress in the right direction. Anything to engage people and make them think outside of their personal little worlds.