Objectivity and fairness in journalism:

Reporters must report, not comment

Gaston De ROSAYRO

Over the past few decades, it seems to me, the media everywhere has come under increasingly heavy criticism. You hear the refrain all the time – that journalists should be objective and fair. Some news organisations even use these terms in their slogans, claiming that they are more ‘fair and balanced’ than their competitors. But what is objectivity, and what does it mean to be fair and balanced?

Objectivity means basically that when covering hard news, reporters don’t let their emotions or personal agendas get the better part of their discretion. Which means they must have the will to rein in their sentiments and representations. They must restrain themselves from conveying their own feelings, biases or prejudices in their stories. They are expected to accomplish this by using a language that is neutral and avoiding characterizing people or institutions in ways good or bad.

But for the rookie reporter who is accustomed to writing personal essays or journal entries, it can be hard to keep one’s own feelings out of one’s stories. One trap newly recruited reporters fall into is the frequent use of adjectives. Adjectives can easily convey one’s feelings about a subject, subconsciously or otherwise.

For example take into account a typical opening statement one is often assailed with such as this one: “The intrepid protesters demonstrated against the unjust government policies.” Merely by using the words “intrepid” and “unjust” the writer has quickly conveyed his feelings on the story. It implies that the protesters are brave and just in their cause and the government policies are wrong. For this reason, hard-news reporters usually avoid using adjectives in their stories

On the other hand one must take into account that much of the criticism levelled at journalists on the subject comes from disgruntled elements who wish to air their own agenda. It has become fashionable for those on the left, right, and even some self-acclaimed middle-of-the-roaders, to lash out at the allegedly liberal bias of journalists today.

Today, more and more people, including many journalists, argue that objectivity is impossible. Reporters, the reasoning goes, are warm-blooded beings with feelings, opinions and biases that cannot help but be reflected in their scribbling. The view that objectivity is impossible begs the question: Why? It is not your point of view as a reporter that determines objectivity. Rather it is your integrity, your heart, your conscience, your professionalism and your devotion to duty.

Anyone who has written for the news media has little trouble discerning what is objective and what is not. Only a reporter with no conscience, no ethics, no sensibilities towards others could fail to be objective without knowing it.

A reporter’s job is simply to report; not to express opinions or take sides. When a reporter departs from ‘just the facts,’ believe me, he or she knows it. When statements other than facts must be reported, good reporters are sure that proper attribution - which we dealt with in a previous article - is used.

Whatever a reporter’s own personal views may be on a subject, he or she can write objectively on any subject by simply not injecting any of their biases into it. Any time reporters begin to think subjectively, they cannot help but be aware of it - and, if they are honest, they will reverse their field.

Unfortunately, some newspaper readers have difficulty distinguishing among various sources, often blaming a reporter or taking the newspaper to task for something said by a source. Let us say for instance when something negative is said about a politician, the paper often gets angry telephone calls - even though the author of the remarks has given attribution.

Agreed, a newspaper is liable for anything it prints, but proper attribution shows there is no malice on the newspaper’s part. In editorials, analytical pieces, and sometimes feature stories, reporters and editors have more leeway to be somewhat less objective. But these pieces are either located on the editorial or special feature pages. They are often labelled ‘analysis’ or ‘viewpoint’ so that the reader, in some other way is given notice that they may be less objective. But newspapers can provide more in-depth stories, greater background information and a greater understanding of the overall issues of any subject while still retaining objectivity.

It is this very objectivity that gives a newspaper the believability it needs to continue to publish with the respect of its readership. To be scrupulously fair when covering issues of controversy it is absolutely vital to get both sides, to interview people of opposing viewpoints. But aside from issues of fairness, it is also part of doing thorough reporting.

Objectivity and fairness apply not only to how a reporter writes about an issue, but also to how he or she conduct themselves in public. That means a reporter must not only be objective and fair but also convey an image of being objective and fair.

There are a few caveats to remember when considering objectivity and fairness as well. First, such rules apply to reporters covering so-called hard news, or straight news stories, for the main news section of a newspaper. Obviously they don’t apply to the political columnist writing for the op-ed page, or to the film or book critic all of whom make a living giving their opinions on a daily basis.

Second, remember that ultimately, reporters are in search of the truth. And while objectivity and fairness are important, a reporter should not let them get in the way of finding the truth. In other words, use objectivity and fairness as tools to find the truth. That is your goal as a reporter.

There are good business reasons to be ‘objective’ too, not least that a newspaper does not want to make large parts of its community angry and polarised. And, no doubt, libel law has played a significant role, too. If a publication could say it ‘got both sides’ perhaps a libel plaintiff would have more trouble winning.

Again, the idea of objectivity is a worthy one. But we are human. We have biases and backgrounds and a variety of conflicts that we bring to our jobs every day.

I would like to toss out objectivity as a goal, however, and replace it with four other notions that may add up to the same thing. They are pillars of good journalism: Thoroughness, Accuracy, Fairness and Transparency.

The lines separating them are not always clear. They are open to wide interpretation, and are therefore loaded with nuance in themselves. But I think they are a useful way to approach quality journalism.

And in a nutshell to reporters, here is the moral of the story? Keep your opinions to yourself!