“Objectivity Has Got To Go”: News Leaders Call for the End of Objective Journalism

“Objectivity Has Got To Go”: News Leaders Call for the End of Objective Journalism

We previously discussed the movement in journalism schools to get rid of principles of objectivity in journalism. Advocacy journalism is the new touchstone in the media even as polls show that trust in the media is plummeting. Now, former executive editor for The Washington Post Leonard Downie Jr. and former CBS News President Andrew Heyward have released the results of their interviews with over 75 media leaders and concluded that objectivity is now considered reactionary and even harmful. Emilio Garcia-Ruiz, editor-in-chief at the San Francisco Chronicle said it plainly: “Objectivity has got to go.”

I am at a loss...

Perhaps this is a clear sign to me that I have completely misunderstood the point of journalism. According to the American Press institute "journalism" is defined thusly:

Journalism is the activity of gathering, assessing, creating, and presenting news and information. It is also the product of these activities.

Journalism can be distinguished from other activities and products by certain identifiable characteristics and practices. These elements not only separate journalism from other forms of communication, they are what make it indispensable to democratic societies. History reveals that the more democratic a society, the more news and information it tends to have.

While somewhat relieved to see that definition... after all, it means that gathering and presenting information is 'journalism' which means that is what we ostensibly do right here at ATS. However, we allow the process to take the form of conversation between individual members. so we must accept that each will have an opinion they are likely to share with the information... 'information + opinion' does not seem to be considered a 'journalistic" product though...

Now, in the "press" and "media" it is.

What they are saying is that in their esteemed and learned opinions, news need not focus on objective realism about the subject... but instead upon 'advocacy' ... which would imply that anyone who can 'officially' claim the 'title' of 'journalist' is now to be a trusted source of moralistic messaging.

I have a problem with that.

Saying that “Objectivity has got to go” is, of course, liberating. You can dispense with the necessities of neutrality and balance. You can cater to your “base” like columnists and opinion writers. Sharing the opposing view is now dismissed as “bothsidesism.” Done. No need to give credence to opposing views. It is a familiar reality for those of us in higher education, which has been increasingly intolerant of opposing or dissenting views.

Mayber I am now officially 'not with it" anymore ... I think this an offshoot of the trend towards identity politics... no one can speak in public without identifying their self-perceived and projected "virtue" on any topic... and thus all contrary opinions become personal attacks and acts of verbal violence. Nice.

a reply to: Maxmars

Objective journalism has been dead for some time now. It's a pity the news organizations haven't noticed.

That's how dumb they are.

a reply to: Maxmars

Just a question to all these so-called advocate-journalists. . . . .

Would you also accept a Christian journalist reporting that Heaven and Hell are real and only Jesus Christ can save you?

a reply to: Maxmars

They are just coming out in the open on what they are already "Practicing".

Why pretend any longer. They just want to get rid of that "expectation of actual ethics and truth" being used against them.

a reply to: DBCowboy

That is clearly not the intent of the "high-level" thinkers in the newer - improved for the 21st Century - brand of advocate journalism.

Clearly, it's meant only to allow for more media-based brainwashing and social engineering.

Traditionalist ideologies, conservative values... they are the target which editorialists clamor to undermine on behalf of the "mothership ideology."

a reply to: Maxmars

So it's advocacy journalism, but you can only advocate for a certain ideological stance.

Got it.

a reply to: infolurker

Maybe it says something that they are 'coming out of the closet' now... maybe they figured out that if this is to be their "new normal" they can't expect to be dodging objections for the rest of the century...

Maybe editors got tired of shouldering the blame for over-amped activists in journalism.

Maybe there is still dissent from within... now it must be 'enforced' that journalism that is objective is "bad."

originally posted by: Creep Thumper
a reply to: Maxmars

Objective journalism has been dead for some time now. It's a pity the news organizations haven't noticed.

That's how dumb they are.

+1. we haven't had objective journalism in many years.

a reply to: Maxmars

I think whoever said this is late to reality. News stopped objective a while ago.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Maxmars

So it's advocacy journalism, but you can only advocate for a certain ideological stance.

Got it.

LOL, did you expect anything else? We all know how it works.

"You can embrace the truth as a trusted friend. If you reject it, it may return as a ruthless conquerer."

so they are just going to make what they have been doing official. I wonder how long it takes to change the definition to suit the new paradigm.

Oh, and if you ask, yep, Clown World. Straight up.

a reply to: network dude

Won't it be fun when we are no longer at war with eastasia but CNN didn't get their memo on time?

sub·jec·tive : Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

ob·jec·tive : Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.


Journalism has been Subjective for years now . I have no Idea what this guy in the article is talking about .

To respond to a few comments I would like to elucidate...

Yes, we all know that unbiased media is a thing we have been experiencing for more than decades...

But they have never specified that they were NOT being objective....

In fact, it was only recently (relatively speaking) that the media has been expressing the fact that they were an "entertainment" venue, and thus not liable for any consequences from what they produced... and that first hit the ground running when the TV companies of old started to face legal problems...

For the last century "press" pretended that they had not changed and were "still" bringing you the latest news facts.

But a movement seeded in academia began the process of 'changing' the discipline to reflect it strange ideological bending. That movement has made this new idea of "advocacy journalism" bleed into the press... because: their "morality."

People used to think in terms of "getting the news of the day" ... but it became less and less "the news" and more and more "what we want to say 'about' the news." Now they will claim it is a moral imperative to tell you what you should think about what they are reporting... that is a substantial change from what "reporting" was commonly thought to be.

Now we have to watch for reporting that includes bias, and their job will be to make you feel their bias is not bias at all.

Somewhere in there, the actual "news" become lost in a sea of gobbledygook about identities, equity, racism, and perceived oppression, as well as politics, ideology and populism - fueled by virtue signaling. All things point to news as a sales product... and once again another step past simply informing... on to convincing.

I get it, for a lot of you this is 'meh' 'ho-hum' 'so what else is new?'

But there was a time when it was not so, and people could trust the quality of coverage no matter who covered a story... now it's a matter of sides, editorial biases, and the highest paying 'sponsors.' We used to have a standard that demanded coverage without bias... but apparently some club members want that accepted as 'wrong.'

a reply to: Maxmars



These assholes would make Goebbels so proud....

a reply to: Maxmars

Are they advocating for antisemitism now or will their focus remain on white people?

Subjectively speaking, will Kanye be given more airtime?

If not, why not?

a reply to: Maxmars

'objectivity is now considered reactionary and even harmful'

That's hilarious.

Talk about manufactured reality.

Did you catch this recent video on modern day Mockingbird?

Thought it was a very good one.

originally posted by: Creep Thumper
a reply to: Maxmars

Objective journalism has been dead for some time now. It's a pity the news organizations haven't noticed.

That's how dumb they are.

I would say it was deliberately malicious as opposed to dumb.

Cheers

a reply to: F2d5thCavv2

You're right.