Should Journalism Be Objective? Serial: Part 2 | Idea Channel | PBS Digital Studios
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 24 ноя 2024
- Viewers like you help make PBS (Thank you 😃) . Support your local PBS Member Station here: to.pbs.org/don...
Tweet us! bit.ly/pbsideac...
Idea Channel Facebook! bit.ly/pbsideac...
Talk about this episode on reddit! bit.ly/pbsideac...
Idea Channel IRC! bit.ly/pbsideac...
Email us! pbsideachannel [at] gmail [dot] com
Welcome to PART DEUX of our discussion of "Serial", the insanely popular podcast hosted by Sarah Koenig. Last week we discussed objectivity in the law, and this week we're turning our attention to objectivity in journalism. Journalists have been tasked with objective reporting for decades, but is that a realistic goal? Can any journalist be TRUELY objective? Is "Serial" an example of failed objectivism, or is it a reminder of its impossibility? Watch the episode and find out more!!
Meetup details
Saturday Feb. 7th 2015
12-3pm
IBM Building Pavilion
590 Madison Ave, New York, NY
www.nyc.gov/htm...
Sources:
Truth and Objectivity in Journalism: Anatomy of an endless misunderstanding by Juan Ramón Muñoz-Torres
The objectivity norm in American Journalism by Michael Schudson
Scientific objectivity in journalism? How journalists and academics define objectivity, assess its attainability, and rate its desirability by Senja Post
Defining Objectivity within Journalism: An Overview by Charlotte Wien
journalism.colo...
bitchmagazine.o...
www.theatlantic...
www.rollingston...
www.washingtont...
/ 539156044178399233
books.google.c...
Listen to Serial
serialpodcast.org/
------------------------------------------------------
COMMENTS:
Sapientiam
/ cnwszyq
BinayakaSahu
/ cny1qqu
Eric Vilas
• How Objective Is The L...
Earnest Pettie
• How Objective Is The L...
TheEmperorGulcasa
• How Objective Is The L...
Laurel Teal
• How Objective Is The L...
Serah Wint
• How Objective Is The L...
TWEET OF THE WEEK
/ 558060521258483713
I made a podcast!
Reasonably Sound: bit.ly/1sCn0BF
------------------------------------------------------
MUSIC:
"Europe" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Level 5" by Room for the Homeless (bit.ly/10N0Ykm)
"Bouncy Castle" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
":P" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Squarehead" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Number Cruncher" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Little Birthday Acid" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Topskore" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Anti Vanishing Spray" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Tarty Prash" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Carry on Carillon" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Uptown Tennis Club" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Squarehead" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Dream Of Autumn" by Night Shift Master
/ dj-darkmatter-
"Insert Toy For Coin" by Eatme (eatme.pro/music/)
"Dizor" by Outsider
www.jamendo.co...
"Lets go back to the rock" by Outsider
www.jamendo.co...
"Something like this" by Outsider
www.jamendo.co...
------------------------------------------------------
TRANSLATE THINGS @ ideachannel.sub...
Hosted by Mike Rugnetta (@mikerugnetta)
Made by Kornhaber Brown (www.kornhaberbr...)
Want some more Idea Channel?
How Objective Is The Law?
• How Objective Is The L...
The Uncertain Connection Between North Korea and Hackers
• The Uncertain Connecti...
Even More Fallacies
• Even More Fallacies! |...
YULE TUBE!
• YULE TUBE! | Idea Chan...
![Stromae, Pomme - “Ma Meilleure Ennemie” (from Arcane Season 2) [Official Visualizer]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1F3OGIFnW1k/mqdefault.jpg)
Is Serial journalism, or is it a story about journalism? The focus of the podcast isn't like a news story delivering facts; I think the focus of the podcast is a narrative with Sarah as the protagonist. Sarah doesn't just give us the facts, she tells us the story of how she personally discovered and experienced the facts. Like any narrative the goal is to help the audience into the subjective shoes of the protagonist. Sarah could have gone through these events simply as research for an objective analysis of the case to be published after her research concluded with her entire experience of researching the case left as a story untold, but she didn't. She chose to tell the story of her subjective experience of the facts, rather than simply delivering the facts. I think it was a good choice, and I think it is what makes the podcast so gripping and entertaining.
The biggest bias in journalism is choosing what to report. That's it. If you want to bias yourself, you report only things that interest you. Do you want to be purely objective? Then report absolutely everything that comes across your field of view. Do you not want to do that? Sorry, you're biased.
This is in part why I find objectivity so stupid. It's not something you can really do. There is no objectivity, just collective subjectivities.
I think you hit the nail on the head though. Maybe transparency is a more worthy and attainable goal to strive for. I personally loved how transparent SK was with her thought process, how she waffled between guilt and innocence, how she would entertain ideas then disregard them. It was refreshing.
My short opinion on the matter has always been that editorializing is okay as long as journalism doesn't consist primarily of editorials and that journalists make an effort to make it clear when they are editorializing (I.E. transparency).
Here's an idea: Everyone in the comments who is providing an opinion on "objectivity" should have to define what they mean by "objectivity" because there is no objective definition of that word
Unaffected by bias?
That doesn't matter as long as they don't equivocate. If they disagree with other commenters, it's important for them to check that the disagreement isn't simply to do with using different meanings of the word.
For that matter, there isn't an objective definition of ANY word, simply by virtue that we, many sentient beings with many sentient thoughts, feel need to SUBJECT definitions to words.
But since you're asking, 'objectivity' is the state of unanimously, unequivocal consensus on what something *is*. To more accurate extreme, might as well throw in at any point in time, for any sentient entity. You see how impossible this is, no?
The only way it theoretically DOESN'T become an impossible endeavor is if the subject being agreed upon is simple and unchanging enough for all people at all times to perceive it the same ... which is ANOTHER impossible extreme.
[Insert Inception Sound Effect Here] inception.davepedu.com/
Is there an objective definition of "pedantic"?
A great book on objectivity in journalism is "The Influencing Machine" by Brooke Gladstone of On The Media. As for Serial, I didn't go to any of the research that was posted/obtained by Koenig and co. For people who go in for that type of thing I'm sure it was super interesting but it seemed like a Jack-the-Ripper style rabbit hole. For me, the point of Serial, at least for the first season, was definitely more about the nature of truth and narrative than an actual quest for truth.
How did you make it through this entire episode, and a mention of Jay Rosen, without referencing the "View From Nowhere"?! He has stated, and I agree, that the VFN is really the root problem, the unrealistic ideal that simultaneously dumbs down journalism and sets up unrealistic expectations for it in the public's mind.
The value of a piece of journalism, and journalists themselves, is ultimately tied to *authority*. Today's media are challenging the source of that authority, and Serial is but one example of that (see also: bloggers, Twitter, RUclips). For most of American history (or at least how it looks from the perspective of today), journalism held an unearned, sort of _assumed_ authority, based on this nebulous concept of "objectivity" and journalists saying "you should believe me because I am a sterile conduit for information who calls him/herself journalist" and that because they could zoom out infinitely that they were giving you the "whole story".
Now people are starting to see that this unearned authority is hollow and doesn't always provide us with the most useful information. We are (I think) entering a time when authority is earned by, as you said, transparency, but also through experience, accuracy and verification, comprehensive (but not always equal) consideration, honest assessment of reality, and ultimately using the expertise gained by years or decades of exposure to a beat to deliver information that is useful and valuable. All of this rests on transparency, though.
And before anyone starts screaming "authority fallacy", I don't think this qualifies, because it is an earned authority, it is applicable expertise, and therefore has value.
"Objectivity" doesn't even have just one useful definition, at least in the public's mind. Here I'll rip off a few from Rosen: Should claims be based on verifiable facts? Yes. Should journos report what is and not what we want to be? Of course. Should it mean pulling back and showing where journos are coming from on an issue? Yes. Should journos be able to describe without offering opinion? Yep. But should should journalists _only_ describe without offering opinion? That is where objectivity fails.
Journalists establish a much more real authority by being honest about their process, their knowledge, their experience, and their POV. This is essentially what you said about transparency, but without the "A-word". Koenig didn't do this perfectly (her white privilege is a failure of POV, her failure to contact Urick is failure of process) but she did it openly. Mostly.
Jay Rosen also makes a point that American journalism is in almost every way dumber than the journalists who make it. That is a sign of a broken system. Koenig's transparency and openness wrt her process and research (and you alluded to this) allows us complete access to what she knows, the journalism she produces is no dumber than she is. It may not be perfect, but it is a reflection of her knowledge, her process, and makes her authority (even if it is limited) very clear.
This is rad! Thanks, Joe. These are all awesome points that I agree with. I think the other point sorely missing from this video is one about critical involvement of the audience. You sorta suggest this in tackling the concept of authority, I think? Ideally, the performance of authority would not stand in for actual authority. Ideally, we would not confuse positions aligning with our own ideology with authority. But these two tactics are bundled with how the news tends to be reported and many, many people "fall for it". And so many of us see it happening. Even absent the transparency, we know these tricks! What I see resulting from that knowledge is a belief that journalists need to work harder towards their Objective Ideal. Maybe they do, but there is the question of if that ideal is possible (this video). And the question of if THE MARKET™ would allow truly objective journalism to thrive. Either way, this position-that it is the sole responsibility of news sources and journalists to "be trustworthy"-if over emphasized, discards whatever agency the audience has as a fundamental part of this media process.
Critical involvement of audiences (as such but also as bloggers, on twitter, youtube, like you say) challenges that authority. Except! It doesn't rely on transparency so much as literacy. You could argue that literacy is only possible or effective in media environments where there is some degree of transparency? But I don't know if I think thats 100% true. But however you slice it, if we over emphasize *this* position, we get into a different sort of trouble, of the victim blaming variety. Should an audience be entirely to blame for uncritically giving authority to a source that appears to deserve it? This is a thorny path to navigate.
I think it might be with an emphasis on transparency *and* the critical engagement of audiences that we can effectively bestow/manage this authority. Maybe it's important to meet half way. Maybe that's how to reach the practical ideal (as opposed to the unattainable ideal) of the insight and accountability we expect from journalism? To a degree, I see Serial as an illustration of this type of thing, too.
PBS Idea Channel You make a good point about literacy. It is not entirely fair to blame an audience for failing to recognize that a source may be untrue or overly biased if that audience does not have the information literacy skills required to recognize such things. Many older people, for example, are used to depending on a single source of journalism and trusting it implicitly, so when they are confronted with an abundance of sources found on the Internet, tv, or elsewhere, they get slammed with information overload. Some people even have trouble distinguishing ads from articles.
Teaching information literacy is critical to creating an informed and engaged audience. If people never learn how to thoughtfully evaluate the media they consume, they may take everything at face value without realizing that bias is even present.
PBS Idea Channel can you do a video on what would happen if electricity was put to use today. like if nobody had discovered how to use electricity would it be patented and the edison become rich? In the United States how would the law apply to something like that today
PBS Idea Channel Great points on the importance and responsibility of the audience. This idea of information literacy reminds me of a very depressing Isaac Asimov column from Newsweek in 1980 that I will leave here so everyone can get sad and realize that some of this is not a new problem: media.aphelis.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/ASIMOV_1980_Cult_of_Ignorance.pdf
And you brushed the edge of it with your mention of "the market" but none of this addresses how _commercial_ news has jumbled all of this up like an ethical Vitamix
Joe Hanson
Great article, used that one on a few people during college.
Love that you are doing office hours. It would be really cool if there was some kind of online office hours for those who aren't in NY.
Transparency is the new Objectivity is like, the greatest thing I've ever heard.
I objectively want you to do an episode on Cereal. If you could find some sort of interesting *food* for though on that, I'd be *wholly* interested in such a *grand* topic, part of this complete breakfast.
You are the worst kind of person.
Way to *milk* that joke.
Jacob Ebelher Yes, not murders, rapists or child molesters, but people who make puns on the internet. You've really got your priorities in order, clearly.
Wait, how is "grand topic" a cereal pun?
Alicia Drevdahl
Y'know, like bran, and grain....
It's very sophisticated humor XD
...we're 5 months in campaigning for transparency in journalism.
Talking about GamerGate? I see mostly rhetoric about objectivity there, but maybe some folks active there would like to change that now.
Actually, Gamergate is specifically campaigning for bias, since they assume their side is correct when the evidence doesn't support them.
***** The story of the not-charity that was never a charity in the first place yet you all keep calling it a charity. The not charity that made several transphobic and racist blog posts before they were called out on it by Quinn and others, which led to them deleting all of them and then making the Transgender allowance page completely out of whole cloth? Even since then they've made several blog posts that is basically assuming biological essentialism.
Silverizael Wait, you are saying that any group to which people can simply decide to call themselves members should be abolished when there are some radicals within the group showing up? Great, you just made an argument to be against feminism. So, why do you attack GamerGate and not the Feminist Movement? After all that movement has made death threats and propagated ideas on gendercite since the 60s! Guess you are just another SJW hypocrite, attacking one group but ignoring that you are fighting for causes that have the same issues.
Drudenfusz Silverizael
A question I wounder, what are the ratios of radicals and non-radicals? For both groups. I'm personally not sure, though I thought perhaps it may relate. Also I am curious, what do you think; should the proportion of a groups radicals affect our perceptions of that group entirely?
We as a society have to put a collective weight on the idea of objective journalism, regardless of whether it is achievable. Otherwise our information on anything we can't directly perceive will be necessarily limited. As a historian, I often have to scour news sources for such information. It is of course part of the scholarly process to be critical of that media's objectivity, but it is almost taken for granted that the semblance of objectivity is intended.
As a student in journalism school, this question perplexes me. I'm told objectivity is essential and it's immoral to not have objective reporting. While I agree that people's biases shouldn't lead people to misrepresent, fabricate, and lie about facts, we as humans are subjective beimgs. A part of me thinks that objectivity isn't properly understood today. Objectivity isn't the absence of biases but rather Objectivity is and I think should more appropriately be impartiality of method.
as i said last week if journalist do not strive for objectivity how am i as a viewer meant to trust them and more importantly meant to the news without needed to go where i have people who agree with me and then we come around to the issue of living in our own little bubble of life just like the femanatizs of tumblr. beaing objectiv is somthing journalists need to strive for otherwise extremism will tear us apart. saying transparancy should cover objectivity is just wrong even when you are striving for objectivity you still need to be transparaent it is not a question of ether it is both.
if you're being objective there's no point in being transparent, since you're not adding anything to the story you'd just be stating the fact.
but i think the question being asked isn't "should journalism strive to be objective?" but rather "can a person with their own thoughts and ideas be truly objective?"
the answer to the first question is pretty obviously yes, but its made pretty redundant since the answer to the second question (atleast in my opinion) is no.
so then since people can't be objective maybe we should instead try to be as open about our inherent biases as possible. and let others know from what angle we are approaching a certain fact.
yaay, politics :/
Striving for an impossible goal is pointless. Rather, you should consider what about that impossible goal is appealing, and strive for that instead. It makes far more sense to simply strive for honesty or neutrality.
***** No no no, he's saying to take the part that's appealing and strive for that instead. The appealing part of gender equality is equality, so we should abandon the impossible dream of gender equality and strive for the much-more-attainable dream of universal equality.
Transparency and objectivity go hand in hand to making a good journalistic piece. One doesn't replace the other. We can't ever hope to be truly objective or transparent, but a mix of the two gives people the ability to see facts and understand opinions. Take Philip Defranco, he does a news show kind of thing on youtube, he expreses his opinion constantly but he always gives us pretty fair and unbiased information in the form of statistics and reports straight from the incident. That's not to say his word should be taken as law or anything, I'm sure he'd agree we should watch a bunch of news channels with differing opinions to see all sides of everything but he's a good example of how transparency and objectivity can work well together to create something both informative and opinionated.
Whether or not objectivity is truly an "impossible" goal is almost unimportant. Even if objectivity in journalism is impossible, there are many things that are thought to be impossible that still serve as compass points or goals that drive movement in a direction. Even if it is impossible, moving towards objectivity is a valuable process (if not the goal). What can be gained by moving towards objectivity is greater trust in sources, a rise in overall quality of skepticism, an increase in knowledge, and probably a great deal of other benefits I cannot articulate at this moment.
In short, the idea of objectivity ...the goal of objectivity... is a laudable one the pursuit of which benefits all.
This episode make me reminisce of narrative journalism. While there are some distinct differences and similarities between Serial and narrative journalism, this topic of objectivity makes me think about what we look for when we want to be entertained or informed. It seems like the large growth of digital content is attempting to satisfy both.
I want to thank you for all the time and effort you put into Idea Channel. This show really makes me stop and think. It derails my train of thought and I love every seconds of it.
Despite poster already trying to suggest that this topic shouldn't be mentioned, lets do it anyway!
Gamergate is an excellent example of how journalism, objectivity and transparency are really tricky subjects.
In essence: If a gaming publisher purchases hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of advertising space on a gaming media website for a game they're about to sell, this might come with a tacit and unspoken (but heavily implied) understanding that A) They also want a very positive review of that game, as a tit-for-tat for the advertising money and B) If the site doesn't deliver, they won't get any more advertising money
Such an environment is tailor made to be corrupt and controled by those who pull the purse strings.
Thus, the point about transparency being the 'new objectivity' is a perfect and brilliant one.
The GamesJournosPro email list leak revealed massive and rampant corruption among gaming journalists - one gaming journalist at one point stating in the email logs "Who here hasn't slept with a PR person or game developer? #AMIRITE"
Such an attitude simply shows deeply in bed - literally in some cases apparently - some gaming journlists are with the people making and selling games.
Gamers look to gaming media sites for reviews of games to give them an idea of where to spend their money - but if those reviews have been bought and paid for to not be 'objective' but instead merely extended marketing tools... well... that's where you need transparency.
If gaming journalists say that a review was sponsored by, or paid for by, a developer or publisher - then the people reading it can take that into account when evaluating what they're reading.
Its a similar issue with Metacritic - the agregate media review site. It is owned by CBS Interactive. The same company owns GameSpot, a gaming media site that reviews games. The same company also owns Giant Bomb, another gaming media site that reviews games. It is a well-known fact that metacritic's agregation algorithm weighs the scores from different sites differently, supposedly based on some kind of "Well this site's reviews are more influencial so its counts for more" logic... but its not an algorithm avaliable to the public.
...and hey: CBS Interactive coordinates with CBS Network Sales to run ad sales operations. Want to bet that this includes deals to rig or influence metacritic scores? If by nothing else then via the company's own two game review sites?
That is why transparency is the new objectivity: Buying advertising is perfectly legal, but not telling your site users whether or not your reviews are bought and paid for is ethically shady as [insert your own choice of swear-word here] - and that's why Gamergate wants transparency and ethics codes. No lying to gamers in reviews for cash.
Sources:
www.breitbart.com/london/2014/09/18/the-emails-that-prove-video-games-journalism-must-be-reformed/
www.cinemablend.com/games/Publisher-Admits-Game-Review-Scores-Heavily-Influenced-By-Trips-Parties-Swag-48395.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBS_Interactive
As an explanation for those out there confused on the subject of transparency versus objectivity, I would like to state my view as to why that is and perhaps help you to understand what is meant. The reason why transparency is superior to an attempt at objectivity is that no matter what you do, no matter how hard you try, your biases are going to leak in somewhere.
By clearly stating who you are, what you are about, you allow people to take the news that you present as one side of a story. They can then go out and find other sources to discover their own side of the story. By claiming that you were objective, when you cannot be, one might assume that you are an unbiased source, and from there extrapolate their version of the story. Unbeknownst to them, their version was skewed by yours. Creating a whole lot of mis-communication (Happened a whole lot to me when talking about the Eric Garner case amongst my peers).
The Pros, therefore, are allowing people to seek other sources to find, as close as they can perceive, an "Objective" take on the story, which they can then base their subjective view upon. The Cons are basically the ability of people to get in a confirmation bias loop. They hear an opinion on the news, take up the same opinion, then watch as the news constantly defends it. But I question if that loop wouldn't have happened anyway, but without the honesty on the side of the Journalist.
Objectivity is like altruism. (Fallacious I know most likely the faulty analogy fallacy.) It's an unreachable end goal but a goal none the less.
Makes no sense. Altruism is an act of concern not an unreachable state of perfection.
Have you heard of the selfish gene? With that in mind. Would that make altruism a little difficult?
Why? There's nothing in the meaning of altruism that excludes taking care of yourself.
Snobby Gamer your right. Sacrifice can be altruism but isn't always necessary.
Snobby Gamer
It depends on the way you think of altruism. I don't know how you feel about Ayn Rand, but her definition is a useful one--she says that it is impossible to be selfless. If I give of myself, it's because *I* want to. I do it because *I* think it's right. Not because someone else thinks it's right. If I don't think it's right, I won't do it--the decision hinges solely on my judgement. When I do something that I think is right, it is a selfish action. In that sense, there are no truly selfless or altruistic actions, because I can only commit actions that I have decided to commit.
I personally believe provider of news should be completely objective and socially unbiased. They are to provide information to the public and have a responsibility to do so. They can cause Hysteria, prejudice and other issues by exaggerating or poorly delivering information. If they insist on catering to their political beliefs, then they shouldn't fool themselves providing news. Especially when the likes of a celebrity magazine is more extensive with its own delivery of information. But that's just my, not so objective, opinion.
But how can they do this? Human subjectivity flows through literally everything we do. Even if they aren't overtly "catering to their political beliefs," their work still comes from their own perspective. How would we go about being completely objective?
I think by stripping down the news to pretty just the information, the facts if you will would work. Though the I Daily is still subjective to some extent, it's set limitation if you will aids in it being more objective. By being a smaller, 'bite sized' medium it doesn't give itself much room to play to an agenda.
It might be impossible for people to be completely impartial, but the fact we news providers such as the Daily Mail in Britain and perhaps Fox News in America, who are actively subjective in the news they provide. It is when they use their position to attack ideals or people, is when I think we should draw a hard line in the sand. When we have to demand for them to be responsible, and objective as possible or tell them to stop claiming themselves as a source for reliable information. There's a point where the news becomes nothing but gossip.
This idea I think ties into the success of journalism comedy. Shows like the Daily show, the Colbert Report, Last week tonight, and others have a way of informing the masses on the news even if that is not the intention of the shows. Bare with me in this one. If honest transparency is the closest we can get as informants to the ideal objectivity desired. Then the obtuse, tongue in cheek, nature of these shows greatly help with viewers sense of trust. We know when viewing these shows what their "agenda"is, to make us laugh. People watching the shows know from the start that they are being lied to or are having the story spun so it becomes a source for knowledge on what is currently being spun through the journalism machine and hopefully they go do some research on their own to become informed.
Coincidentally Mike you may have tackled this on the 2 question episode when you first mentioned the meet up. Is the seriously just now happening? Haha
Transparency of journalistic process is like "method" in scientific research. It does not confirm truthness of your result but it points out where reasoning could go wrong.
I almost always hate slippery slope arguments but I think this is one of the few times it's appropriate. If journalism didn't value objectivity than almost all "news" would be editorial. I think that would be terrible for society. Politics would somehow be even more divisive, mobs would more readily call for the blood of the accused and propaganda would be even more rampant than it is today. Objectivity is impossible to achieve but if it is not an aspiration than we would live in a more divided society.
I don't know how but your comment is both aging well and poorly
To some extent I agree with the transparency argument, while objectivity is the ideal, it is almost impossible to accomplish, and recognizing your own biases openly is probably the best way to allow an audience to form their own opinion of your 'story'.
It seems like a preference thing to me. To use an analogy, a camera and journalism both have the purpose of answering the question "what happened?". Both offer an imperfect picture though. A camera has distortions and scratches in the lens, as well as any flaws in whatever medium it's recorded on. In this analogy , an " objective" journalist would be the image presented as-is and let the viewer decide if the color is right or if that line is a scratch on the lens or actually part of the scene. A "transparent" journalist just marks all the scratches with a little sharpie arrow pointing to it.
Regardless of the way that journalism is aporoached, the "what happened?" Question will be answered imperfectly, so does the journalist want to offer up something the reader can be satisfied with as something that LOOKS like a complete picture, or something that has all the deficiencies identified and labelled.
Yes. We should totally promote the idea of inserting bias into journalism. It's totally ethical to purposefully leave out details to present a false narrative. And that in no way can have negative repercussions for the individuals involved.
It's perfectly fine for journalists to leave out evidence, because their goal is not to present the truth, but to get a conviction in the court of public opinion. And that has never, ever led to real world consequences for anyone, right?
I'm so glad that the PBS Idea Channel stands by the injustice that caused so many to lose decades of their lives behind bars, not because they committed a crime, but because public opinion was swayed against them by opinionated pundits.
The West Memphis Three convictions are proof that we shouldn't strive for objectivity, but instead reinforce the preconceptions, insecurities and prejudices of the public at large. We shouldn't challenge people with evidence that runs contrary to their beliefs - we should simply tell people what they want to hear.
Truly you've exonerated Fox News, Nancy Grace, and every Lifetime original movie.
I'm so gutted the meet-up wasn't arranged a few days earlier. I'm visiting New York for the first time this weekend, all the way over from the UK, and If it was this weekend I would have definitely come along. Oh well, it wasn't meant to be :)
Maybe I've just been reading too much Chomsky, but I think it is important to remember that journalism is just one of many ways consent is manufactured and creates a propaganda model. Although objectivity in journalism is an ideal, (as you discuss), it is an impossible ideal because journalism exists only as privileged by the hegemony. For example, consider the narratives created about Cuba by American media corporations versus those created by Canadian media corporations or European media corporations (my apologies for grouping Europe as a single entity).
The silliest claim would be to do away with objectivity because we can never truly achieve it, only attempt.
In this way we should stop trying to strive for justice because we can't ever truly achieve it.
FYI: I dig the new cadence and pace of the show. Not crazy about the desk, though. When you're standing, it's like we're having a discussion, but sitting at a desk just reads like you're talking at us.
Then again, these might've been aesthetic choices you made for these two particular episodes. We'll see next week :-)
A famous italian journalist, Indro Montanelli, had a very interesting idea about this topic. He used to say that it is impossible for journalists to be completely objective, because they need to choose which facts to report and how to report them and this is inevitably going to be influenced by their subjective judgement. And, being human, journalists have personal opinions and ideas, and as such they cannot be "neutral" or "impartial": the driving force behind their search for the facts and maybe also the way they will present and write about - storify, if you like - the facts is given by those opinions, ideas and believes. The only thing that a journalist can do is to strive to be honest and unmerciful: they must not make up facts to uphold their belief or purposefully hide facts because they clash with what they believe. On the contrary, they must be the first to put their opinions to the test and be ready to change them if the facts show the opinion to be wrong.
Now that I think about it, this ideal of journalistic inquiry looks a lot like the scientific method.
I wrote for a tech news website for 3.5 years, and in that time I decided this: journalistic objectivity isn't quite a myth, but it might as well be. There are too many factors acting on the truth for it to be otherwise. The best I could strive for was to be fair to any reasonable perspectives that differed from my own. The trouble with the whole setup is that readers almost never admit to their own biases, and how those biases essentially make the writer's quest for objectivity a fool's errand. If I wrote about Apple in a critical way, I was a hater; if I wrote about Apple in a positive way, I was a fanboy; and, if I were both critical and positive in roughly equal measure, it would be a coin flip based on how the reader zeroed in on whatever turn of phrase could be taken to fit their own preconceived notion of what my own biases were. My own overriding philosophy was essentially "to each his own". Apple isn't my thing, but my wife loves it, and I can certainly understand why that is.
Having listened to all of Serial in a marathon session to get ready for last week's Idea Channel, I would say Sarah Koenig was very objective. She certainly had her own perspective, which is inevitable, but she was fair to all of the evidence she came across and presented it fairly. I'd even say she might have gone a bit too far with a couple of the times she said the phrase "this doesn't look good for Adnan", because that usually meant that the evidence found created suspicion, but rarely that it was actually damning.
And, that was really the point of the show - it was never about her trying to find the evidence to exonerate or damn Adnan, it was about her trying to find ANY definitive evidence at all. The key phrase in the clip you played is that she says she doesn't believe the story "as presented by the state", which is to say that our rule of law - innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt - was never met for her. And, having listened to all of the show, I can't imagine how anyone could have found Adnan guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, unless either Koenig misrepresented the evidence or the prosecution did; and, given the aims of each of those two people, I'd say the prosecution has more reason to misrepresent evidence, since his job is to win his case and to prove Adnan guilty.
I have no idea if Adnan did it or not, but I certainly have enough doubt that I wouldn't have convicted him, which is exactly what Koenig says to close out the show. That is the essential truth of the whole story, regardless of your perspective - based on how our legal system is designed to work, justice was not done in this case.
this is the healthiest channel on youtube
I'm surprised that you didn't mention Hunter S. Thompson and Gonzo Journalism. He realized that full objectivity is an impossible act because we have subconscious biases along with the conscious biases. Words will always carry some connotation that affects interpretation. So, why not celebrate that subjectivity by sharing your own perspective?
A great example of objective journalism is Louis Theroux. He interviews people without (or as little as possible) judgement and lets people talk. If they look bad, it is because they just look bad.
A great example of the opposite is the Murdoch press. During the last Australian federal election, there was no positive stories about the (then) current PM and nothing but praise for the now PM. After the election, most of the other papers started to criticism, and only eventually has the Murdoch press joined in. Even though a criticism for the now PM is qualified but "at least they he is better than the last mob."
I think there should be an active attempt at being objective when reporting and failing that, being transparent about your bias is good.
YES! This is why I love the 'TestTube' channel on youtube. They do a phenomenal job with objectivity.
Journalism is divided into two products: reports, those objective observations of events, and editorials, the opinions of the journalists, sometimes on those reports.
Full disclaimer: I am a freelance journalist, I have studied journalism at University, many of my closest friends are journalists, and I work full time with a newsroom full of journalists.
Objectivity is something every journalist has thought about. A lot. Some journos give themselves an aneurism over the concept. Others decided long ago whether they are or are not objective. I have seen journos declare themselves activist journalists to escape the concept of being objective. I have also heard journalists declare that anyone claiming objectivity is a liar, and that they are better journos by admitting their biases. I can't say which of these groups is right, but I can say that my experiences have led me to a different opinion.
Objectivity is, in my experience, an impossible goal. Talk to any journalist candidly and you will very quickly see that being exposed to the news so much leads them to have very strong opinions. We are not robots. We are all human ad we all have opinions. Those opinions can influence our decisions like whether a story is worth covering, or who should be reached for comment, or where in your newspaper or newscast that story deserves to be placed. Front page material for one journalist could be A12 or another.
That said, every professional journalist I know strives constantly for objectivity. You know you will never be perfect, but you try your very best. That is all anyone can do. Most of the time, we succeed. If we fail to be objective, we hope our editors or coworkers catch it before it goes public. You know, as a journalist, that you will never be perfectly objective, but if you really care, that doesn't stop you from trying.
Agreed.
Transparency is less about admitting your biases and more about admitting your _limits_ as a human being in striving for objectivity (though I think limits end up turning into bias when you switch tack from an objective aim to a subjective one)
Journalism, I think more than reporting something in an objective manner, a Journalist has to say something (and I realize how obvious this is to the role of a Journalist).
Or to put explain in the form of a question: If objectivity is so important, yet we all (should) realize how untenable an aim it is in completion, should journalists say NOTHING in their failure to achieve complete objectivity?
As a university student in journalism I appreciate this post. I think the problem with the question of objectovity is the confusion between the words objectivity and impartiality. Objectivity and lack of all bias is humanly impossible unless perhaps you suffer from either schizophrenia and or dissociative disorder, maybe. I do think owning your biases and being up front about them does make you better. What's required is consistency and impartiality of the methodology of gathering information and presenting facts. People struggle over objectivity in my view becaise they confuse the terms objectivity and impartiality. Journalists should consistently and fairly gather information and facts and should present them as they exist, but two people can both equally accurately compile facts and come up with divergent interpretations of those facts. That's where bias comes in. So long as facts are clearly and accurately presented and the reporter transparently expresses his own interpretation of those facts, the reader is not only able to expose themselves to ideas perhaps contradictory to their own but they at the very least have the opportunity to assess the facts amd further develop critical thinking skills by determining whether or not they agree with the reporter's interpretation of the facts.
"The goal of journalism is to provide insight or accountability where citizens, laws and poltiics can not or do not."
This might be the goal of "journalism" (in terms of a definition of an abstract concept), but I don't feel it's even close to the goal of journalists. I feel like the goal of journalists is to write stories that will sell, so that they and their employers can make profit.
Fair and balanced does not sell. And this is exactly why "Serial" staunchly takes one side over the other--because strong opinions sell "news." Not evidence, facts, numbers and neutrality.
I always enjoyed Serial as great storytelling. A graphic novel on the radio. Marimba Ani is right Objectivity is a very Eurocentric construct 2:12.
I thought they were fair. I am glad they explored this tragedy and I hope nothing like this happens to anyone that doesn't deserve it. If the Law and Journalism was objective and fair more banksters would be in jail.
I agree with this video about transparency being important. Also, one of the ways we can shed light on our subjectivity is to look at alternative subjectivities openly but critically, and this is about the only version of objectivity we have. The more an individual (journalist) can assess alternative viewpoints the better. The perfect journalism would then be journalism that reported a story in a way that added to the readership's understanding of alternative points of view to the absolute highest degree. While this wouldn't be unbiased or objective per-se, it'd probably be the best journalism you could possibly get.
I have two thoughts:
One, that this is where art comes into the picture. We, while still upholding art to rigorous standards on a variety of levels (aesthetically, conceptually, etc), don't expect art to be objective. Subjectivity is, in some ways, what gives art it's power. That's what distinguishes between a novel and journalism, right? We know the author has a bias, has a specific story to tell. That's how art can feel true, honest, or authentic without objectively being true. A person's subjective perspective is just as REAL (meaning, it's actually experienced) as the facts. If we became less focused on getting the facts right (what we care about in journalism) and focused more on being honest with our own experiences (what we care about in art), we might actually learn to empathize more with each other too.
Two, I think it's sort of odd that we even still have this veneer of objectivity in journalism, because most of the Social Sciences gave way to participant observation over objective distance in the early 1900's. The field of anthropology in particular went through a major shift in between 1920 - 1940 when we realized we could learn a lot more by participating in other cultures (and thereby, ruining our "outside"/"objective" position). One of the most famous is Whyte's "Street Corner Study" in the 1930's, where he lived in a slum in Boston (or NY? not sure) and over a period of many years was able to gain access to two rival gangs and see how their networks of power and control were maintained and operated. However, he admits that by the end he found it hard to "objectively" talk about the people he considered friends. Still, it's one of the best texts out there to study gang activity in the 1930's. He knew what it was really like. It's true that in-depth participant observation studies are often hard to quantify as they rely so much on individual human experiences - however, isn't that kind of just the way life is? How easy would it be to quantify anyone's daily lived experiences?
What I'm about to say is inspired a lot by art, in particular James Joyce's book _Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man_ and (to a much smaller degree) Charles Mingus's album _Moves._ I feel that's important to include.
I believe Joyce's "artist" is anyone who dares to think individually - anyone who manages to defy the normative forces of society and who expresses their individual impressions. The artist, above all, _creates,_ and that creation can be anything from paintings to literature to.... original ideas.
And so, to me, that book was an illustration of how one's understanding of the world is an expression of one's own emotions and subconscious/unconscious.
When we assign things meaning - when we interpret things, in other words - we compare them to the things we have in our memory, the things we have experienced, and the realities we've been given by other people until then. In that sense, it's impossible for any individual human to be objective. No individual human can live through every single experience.
As such, I don't think objectivity exists at all. Conversely, I think that the thing that makes humanity remarkable is the ability to recognize (or, in the case of art, even celebrate) our unshakable subjectivity.
(I would even further argue that because we have such limited experience, our realities are actually fictions that we continually build and rebuild. Lately I've been thinking about the line between truth and fiction, and in this light it's hard for me to find a difference. Talk about going down the rabbit hole!)
Using this lens, I don't think journalism or law should ever pretend to be objective - just transparent, in that they respectfully voice every critical thought they have and respond critically to the thoughts others voice.
The media should be (in my own opinion), above all things, a forum through which people can hear new perspectives. So when a journalist strings together an event with specifics words that form a specific narrative, we should analyze the cultural context, emotions, and _individual experiences_ behind it. After all, the journalist created that narrative. They made art. Now it's up to us to interact with and interpret it.
The "objectivity vs. transparency" issue in journalism actually sounds very similar to what I'm told is a recent trend in actual scientific writing: the shift from using passive voice to active voice. To me, it's always made more sense to use the active voice for the same reason that transparency may be better to use than feigned objectivity. Passive voice is intended to remove the scientist from the experiment, but that's ultimately impossible. The reality is that humans carried out this experiment, and that their mistakes and biases may have an impact on the science.
Every time I was going to post a comment you ninja it in the video :P
I can't help but agree with many points made. Transparency is the key to providing both subjective and objective information. In academia researchers strive for objectivity, however they are also aware of their own subjectivity (or at least strive for it). This becomes clear when you read a hypothesis in an academic journal or paper, the hypothesis in its most base form reveals what the researcher will be looking for. So the first thing the reader sees is a brief explanation of what the researcher hopes to find. Regardless of what the research shows the reader is informed of what to expect.
Journalism does not have the luxury of presenting its hopes in a brief form (at least in most cases). Instead it has relied, for many years, on an unspoken understanding with their audience. This unspoken understanding is no longer enough in an internet age, as want more transparency. They want a journalist to state their opinion before they state the "facts". I am unsure if this will ever actually happen, or even if it is a good thing that it should happen.
Objectivity is something that we should strive for in journalism but due to the limitations of our humanity we will never be able to achieve to its full extent. This is actually a good thing.
In science we use gadgets, like detectors, sensors, measurers, etc., to help us reduce the effects our biases have on the information we gather. Journalism has it's own gadgets like cameras, audio recorders, radio transmission, etc., but humans still have to tell the story and present the information. But what if we could create a machine that we could feed information to and would present it in the most object way possible. Lets imagine how it would present the weather: "A cyclone with wind speeds of 174 kph, and gusts of 194 kmph will make landfall at 10°18′N 109°13′W at 0243 and leave at 0918." Where is that? And what does it matter? Who lives there? Nobody lives there.
Of course this is an extreme example but it illustrates the fact that in journalism we tell stories that matter to us. Even certain elements like race, religion, government, beauty, art, music, beliefs, politics, pain, emotions, empathy all of these have varying degrees of subjectivity but if they are not factored in to the storytelling you might as well tell people that you brushed your teeth this morning instead.
Sarah mentions in one of the episodes that she is surprised that the prosecution overlooked or glossed over some obvious details that would have been in Adnan's favour, but a lawyer friend (or some other person with law experience) informs her that it is the prosecutions job to present the best case possible against the defendant and that it is the defense's responsibility to bring attention to the details that are in contrast. In this moment Sarah learns to appreciate that the law strives for objectivity via subjectivity. One person's voice can only ever be subjective, and Sarah knows that by telling the story from her own point of view, there is only so much she can do to curb the subjectivity of her own voice.
Total objectivity might be impossible to achieve but that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to come as close to it as possible. The bond between the journalist and the reader is one of trust. If you have biases that aren't disclosed then you've broken that trust and you've failed as a journalist. To even consider ditching objectivity is dangerous. Modern journalism is a mess as it is. We should be trying to clean it up, not encourage it to get worse
Objectivity is impossible, but I still think it's good to try for it.
If you let biases rule how you go about reporting something, it can change your perception of what actually happens, you can much more easily ignore evidence that goes against your view simply because you have a certain preconceived notion.
Consequently, the viewer is only presented with evidence that supports the reporter's opinion, and personally I feel that all evidence should be shown, so that the viewers can come to a conclusion themselves.
It's like vaguely like completely ignoring one side of a legal trial.
Interesting that no explicit reference was made to the New Journalists (Hunter S. Thompson, Gay Talese, Truman Capote etc.) of the 1960s and 1970s, as they -- and especially Capote -- feel like the cultural forefathers to Sarah Koenig's framing of Serial as an exploration of an exploration, of her inclusion of the journalist within the scoe of her journalism. I'm reminded of a passage in Tom Wolfe's The Electric Kool-Aid Test, where he talks about the doctors who prescribed LSD without ever taking any as a metaphor for those who try and write "objectively" about a marginalized culture without immersing themselves inside of it. Not only is subjectivity more transparent, aiming at objectivity erects a barrier between subject and observer which can obscure the actual story.
I think it's alright if a journalist injects their opinions into their work as much as they want - as long as they're up-front about their doing so. Claiming there is no bias when there clearly is one immediately makes me stop taking someone seriously.
I recently had a similar conversation with my father about journalism and objectivity when we heard a news story about "virtual reality news"; it puts people in a 3D environment to experience an event in a first-person perspective (similar to the Oculus Rift).
From that conversation and this video, I've learned just how tricky journalism is. Because of that, I think that there should be some news programs that are objective, some that are subjective, and some that are in-between. In fact, I'm pretty sure that this is already the case. In addition, I think that, regardless of whether a program is or isn't objective, they should let the viewer/reader/listener know when they are being subjective. Journalism should be facts first and opinions later (if at all). By inserting opinions with the facts without first clearly separating the two, the story can be told incorrectly.
While absolute objectivity in journalism may be impossible, attempting to be objective will bring us closer to absolute objectivity and force us to question our biases and beliefs, maybe even altering them
Alongside the issue of transparency in journalism as it pertains to Serial, I think you could also view Serial as an example of "Journalistic Praxis," since the show foregrounds the ways in which Koenig engages, and wrestles, with both her theories as a journalist and as a regular human being. Unlike many like-minded journalistic projects, be they documentary films like The Thin Blue Line and Paradise Lost or classic books like In Cold Blood, Serial brings journalistic research practices, as well as the constant battle between personal feelings and professional goals, to the foreground -- even going so far as to emphasize the difficulty of this research. Since praxis exists between the theoretical and the practical, but predominantly concerns the way one engages with a given topic, this could show how Koenig's approach also self-referentially examines the way in which journalists engage with a given topic. I think this is one of the most interesting aspects of the show that doesn't get discussed very much.
“If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you're mis-informed.”
-Mark Twain
Pretty true. The idea that there should be equal representation in media is one I whole-heartedly agree with. It is the media's job to give information to allow the populace to make their own dang desicions.
However, it is also up to the audience to be aware of subtle sways a report may give (an emphasis on a word, little facial actions, etc.) not only because it may have an agenda, but because all reports will never have perfect objectivity.
However, giving up when you're wrong is also important, so you won't waste our time!
Tangent from this great video:
Since Journalism is largely based around the Non-aggression principle, could the principle itself be the motivator of objectivity since we as humans wish to view stories as the truth? Voluntary transparency has the tendency to breed the more sought after knowledge in all fields.
I see a lot of discussion about objectivity, presumably because that's what the American journalism schools tell their students to aim for and what the American media tells the public the news is meant to be.
Things are slightly different in the UK. I attended the Cardiff Journalism School (rated the top journalism school in the UK), and what we were taught - and what is mandated by the Ofcom code - is not objectivity, but 'due impartiality'.
The pursuit of objectivity, I believe, leads to the search for balance where none exists. In the field of climate change, which you mentioned in relation to the BBC, all but a tiny minority of experts agree that climate change exists and that it has been caused by human activity. Objectivity and balance would demand - even in the face of overwhelming opinions on one side - that one voice speak for both sides of the debate, creating the illusion that there is parity between these opposing viewpoints.
Have you been watching TV in America? You are more on target than you may know. Have you been watching a horrible genre of American TV called "Local TV news"? Among their numerous faults is their radically overwrought desire to present "balance" and ensure both sides are heard.
A corollary of this nonsense is the deeply held conviction among conservatives regarding supposed liberal bias in the media. In practice, it's easy to observe that the lack of a clear conservative bias constitutes a liberal bias, as they see it. To reiterate: objectivity is liberal bias.
David J Gill I have watched some American TV, but it's mostly not been news. However, I was a big fan of Aaron Sorkin's show The Newsroom, and that - as well as my degrees - has done a lot to shape my view of the media.
You have a great reading collection. I know it's not Idea channel's style but it would be great if you made a video on good reads.
I LISTENED TO ALL OF SERIAL AFTER I WATCHED THE FIRST EPISODE AND NOW I AM SO PUMPED FOR THIS WEEK'S EPISODE CAPS LOCK FOR COOL
I think the concept of balance as a measurement of objectivity is in itself problematic, not only because one side could be wrong\bad\harmful. If we inherently can't really reach the ideal sense of objectivity, and if that doesn't even matter in journalism in a way, it's impossible to even measure this so called balance to begin with. Is it equal time or representation that allows for balance? Is that balanced at all? It's possible one side has a lot of arguments and one has close to none, so giving them the same amount of time to be heard means the side with little arguments has plenty of room to elaborate and make his side sound more concrete, while the other has little time to do so to fully explain his, meaning it's not only imbalanced, it does in fact allow for more of an imbalance to occur.
Plato said that the people that are given proper training to be philosophical thinkers are the ones that should be ruling his ideal country, and that in turn means content should be censored and even manipulated to establish the right status quo between the 3 types of people in the world (philosophers, guardians and workers). I wouldn't say I agree, but if we think about objectivity in the same way, maybe even allowing for objectivity in the first place as some sort of tool in free journalism is even more problematic? How can we even judge objectivity in the first place if it's practically the opposite of subjectivity which shapes our entire perception of, well, anything? Is it measurable at all? Meaning, without proper skills as a journalist and as a thinking human being it's practically impossible to express true objectivity. But on the other hand, maybe the more tools we have on hand the less possible it is to be objective about the information we're given. And even if we do reach a somewhat identifiable level of objectivity in a news report - Does it serve to do us any good as a society? Takes me back to what Mike said in the video about how some sides could be harmful if presented objectively.
It feels like there's no one real source we can rely on to define, measure and conclude anything about objectivity as an inherent part of journalism, let alone reach actual objectivity in our conclusion. It's a weird concept.
Just some thoughts.
Great 2 part video. "Objective" complete.
Well there's also the fallacy of objectivity. For example, I was arguing with someone about whether transgender is a real thing. Part of my argument was that I know lots of people who are transgender and none of them are doing it for attention or as a reaction to childhood sexual abuse. The counter argument that was made to me was that I'm too deeply involved and emotional about the subject to see things as clearly as he could. That him being outside the situation means that he better understood fact from fiction because he wasn't involved in some way.
The goal of a journalist is to inform you and create news, not to persuade you, nothing more. One of the reasons why newspapers adopt objective journalism is simply because impartial and informative news are more appealing to everyone. Another reason why they use it is to avoid yellow journalism, and bias work. when somethink is bias people tend to ignore it or fight it. While yes, objectivity may be impossible to archive 100%, yet it’s the best guideline to follow. Also don’t forget objective journalism is not the only kind of journalism out there…
When you were describing objectivity I had an idea: is there even an objective definition/description of objectivity? What I mean is, is objectivity the same thing under all circumstances? Can we really have an objective description of what objectivity can or should be, or is objectivity subjective to outside circumstances like how you talk about the law or journalism?
I don't think news organizations by themselves can't be objective, but when you look at journalism as a whole it is objective by nature. I think it's important that an individual news organization has a different view compared to the others. That their opinions and angle of reporting balance the entire public consensus. In the end, journalists won't be perfectly neutral, but they can't always have the same views less they give in to group think.
I just so happened to come across H. S. Thompsons' obituary of President Nixon and I found it pertinent. Perhaps though the goal of objective journalism is lofty and a good thing we should be weary of those people, events, and things that "look good on paper" without taking a hard un-objective look at them.
"Some people will say that words like scum and rotten are wrong for Objective Journalism -- which is true, but they miss the point. It was the built-in blind spots of the Objective rules and dogma that allowed Nixon to slither into the White House in the first place. He looked so good on paper that you could almost vote for him sight unseen. He seemed so all-American, so much like Horatio Alger, that he was able to slip through the cracks of Objective Journalism. You had to get Subjective to see Nixon clearly, and the shock of recognition was often painful."
(Not sure why it formatted that way.)
I'd like to come to the idea channel office hours!... but I live in Canada... :/ maybe setting up a twitch pod cast could help those who can't make it to the office hours?
I can totally see both sides of this. On the one hand, they present ONE story here; their take on the story. I don't assume (and perhaps this is naive of me) that this is the whole story, just 'a' story.
On the other hand, the whole thing gets complicated when you consider that there are 'real world' implications to the story being told. Does this mean that they (journalists) have to hold themselves to a higher standard of 'truthiness' (I love that word by the by) then perhaps other story tellers?
I think this is why there's such a controversy at the moment with American Sniper (perhaps an episode on this would be worth thinking about?). Much of the criticism around American Sniper deals with the fact that it doesn't tell the 'whole picture'. It picks and chooses moments to achieve a narrative that agrees with the otherall message. Should we really expect a film to show us EVERY aspect of the story? Is that the job of a film? Is that even the job of a documentary?
Like I say, I (perhaps naively) assume that whenever I see media of any for, it has been crafted for me. I understand that what I see is a translation of reality (translation being the key word). There's a saying in Italian about translation, (that ironically I'm now going to translate into English), 'Traduttore, traditore', roughly meaning to translate is to betray. Whenever we translate reality into another medium we have to make decisions about what to include and what to leave out. Think about a map for example, we can't show EVERY aspect of the reality we're mapping out (not even the marauder's map can do that), so we have to decide what to show and what not to. This is what I keep in mind whenever I see media; that at the end of the day, it is a translation of reality, and that translation is always, to varying extents, a betrayal.
Now perhaps there's a point to be made about Journalists claiming to tell the objective truth, that's irresponsible IMHO, but in the case of Serial, I think she's pretty open with this, and owns her biases. And I respect her for that. The real world implications have made it messy, but I think she's fair in her position here.
My second comment, because Opinions!
The Good Wife is especially appropriate for this topic.
The Good Wife (well certain characters) constantly make distinctions between "facts" and "opinions." I use scare quotes because the distinction is not always as easy as we want it to be. There is one judge that insists that everything not submitted and marked as evidence be explicitly stated as opinion. So any rhetoric attempting to connect or rationalize human behavior is an "opinion" where the behavior itself is "fact" (contingent on verification).
The is especially complicated when you consider that under this framework, the idea that "human activity is causing climate change" is an opinion. It is the glue that connects the overwhelming evidence that certain human behaviors are strongly correlated with certain changing aspects of earth climate and an explanation.
So my point is that some opinions (which are by definition not objective) are more warranted than others. It is my opinion that your (and anyone's) opinion should be influenced by objective facts, BUT we should keep in mind that any and all conclusions (despite how rational or obvious they may be) are conclusions and therefore subjective.
I think it's important to not only talk about the struggle to achieve objectivity in reporting but also the way in which the journalists present their attempts to be objective to their audiences. In Serial, Sarah does have biases, she openly admits to them, but still attempts to portray the facts in a realistic and "objective" way. She admits that there is a certain degree of subjectivity to the information about the case, and that it is open to interpretation. By doing this she invites the audience to analyze the case themselves, draw their own conclusions, and opens the floor for dicussion.
Contrast this with the 24 hour news channels. These news outlets portray the news in a seemingly objective way, concealing their biases. They attempt to present their interpretation of the facts as "The Objective Truth". This method of presentation offers little to no opportunity for the viewer to draw their own conclusions because the news is presented in such a way as to suggest that there are no other interpretations.
What we end up with is two different models of reporting. One that appears to be biased and presents the facts as fairly as possible. And one that appears objective and places greater importance on facts that reinforce its own narrative of events. I believe this reflects a larger trend in society, at least American society, that prefers things that "seem to be" over things that "are".
The last comment really reminded me of a class I took on Sex and Love in Russian Literature and Film. We talked about Tolstoy and how he believed in celibacy, though despite that, and having people who lived under his teachings and practicing the same, he had several children. We talked about that it wasn't necessarily actually living a celibate life, but that in your life it was something you were striving for.
If you know an article or a news report is subjective it can still tell you much about reality - a lot of wonderful qualitative research is very subjective. What's important is that the consumer knows why and how it's subjective. I study social work, and most of the articles I use describe results from interviews - I have to accept a certain degree of subjectivity to get any work done. However, if the writer doesn't tell me enough about the context of the interviews and how he processed the data, I won't use his research.
This reminded me of an early episode of The Newsroom's first season wherein executive-producer Mckenzie states that a story doesn't have two sides; it has one side, three sides, ten sides, and that finding "balance" by telling two opposing viewpoints is inherently and ethically wrong because it's, essentially, lying to the viewers for the sake of "objectivity".
Really interesting couple of videos, i liked that you said before hand what you were going to do the episode on so that we could have a look at the subject matter. Doing this more often would be great.
Interesting to compare this to other reports of trials in the news and whether we should (as consumers of news) refrain in many cases from having an opinion based on news reports. Where the information is often not very reliable and too limited to know enough about the respective people involved in the crime? Gone girl perhaps portrays an extreme variant of this quiet well.
I find it sad that, in the US, our "journalism" is almost all but dead considering the corporate media has killed any idea of objectivity.
I think the media and journalists should strive for objectivity and at the same time reveal their own bias as not to misinform their audience. I would never expect every journalist to be objective, it's like asking someone to not breathe, you can't escape your own bias. Explaining your own bias allows an audience to separate what is based on your opinion and what is fact (at least I hope it would work like that).
But, at the same time you can never be sure if someone is hiding something to further their agenda unless it is so blatantly obvious. So, I would like to pose an idea that individual journalists don't necessarily have to be objective (so long as they express that they have a bias) and that the media as a whole should be as close to objective as can be. Individuals are subject to their own lives while the institution is subject to everything in the world. I think of it like a democracy of media: in the long run facts overturn opinions because facts don't change and people figure out when you've been lying to them when your "fake facts" don't match reality.
Subjectivity is fine as long as it is transparent, according to me.
I remember back when the utöja massacre just had happened, some people reported it as the perpetrator was most likely Muslim, when this was only a suspicion and/ or rumored.
That kind of bull negativly affects people, with out there being an actual reason for it.
It's ok to be biased as a journalist, aslong as you tell your viewers/readers what they are. Which lets said viewers/readers wage thoose bias with the information given. I also agree that beeing "truely objective" is impossible.
More than anything, I think it would be really nice to have some sources talk ONLY about the new facts of the day, and have other sources that discuss those facts with a variety of viewpoints.
I think that objectivity in journalism, in the sense of reporting "all sides" of a story, or reporting a story without regard to one's bias, is not even the ideal we should be striving for. It's important to keep in mind, as the BBC did, that not all sides of an argument are made equal; not all arguments have substantial enough evidence on both sides to merit treating the sides as though they are equal. And similarly, bias will always exist, no matter how hard we try to eradicate it. Even if you manage to be fairly biased in your report of something, bias can lie in why you chose to report on that in particular, or why you focused on certain aspects of a story and not others. For these reasons, I think it's absolutely true, and it's better that transparency is becoming more highly valued than attempted objectivity. If I read an article that says in no uncertain terms that certain views they hold, certain experiences they've had, have informed their view of what they're reporting, it gives me much more information, and more valuable information, than an article that does not include possible sources of bias. Because knowing those possible biases and what they possibly did to affect the report give us not only the evidence, but also ways that this evidence can be viewed in multiple lights. Ultimately that's just more information, and more information, especially when the source is honest, is almost never a bad thing.
As this relates to Serial, I think they did an admirable job not of trying to be objective, but of trying their best to be transparent. As far as I could tell, Sarah and her team was never necessarily attempting to be objective, but it always seemed to me that they did their best to be honest in what their thinking was. From the outset, Sarah states that she wanted to find out that Adnan was innocent, but that didn't stop her from reporting evidence that made Adnan seem guilty. Throughout the series, as they learn something new, you can tell that they are following the evidence, and they are clear on why the evidence makes them more or less suspicious of Adnan or Jay. The biggest thing that stuck out to me in Serial was not that it seemed like they were trying to be objective, it never seemed like they were, but that they were transparent. It seemed to me that they were very clear on why they thought what they thought. Of course, it's always possible that there are some things that they didn't report, but from what they showed us it seemed to me that they were being as candid as possible, which to me is the most important thing when reporting on something.
Really LOVING the Idea Channel, only discovered it recently and still making my way through the backlog of videos I haven't seen.
On Objectivity in Law and Journalism do you think that the idea of objective truth or justice comes from a theistic world view oh which many of these things were originally based, which our secular western society is trying to find a justification for outside of a deity?
I had a creative non-fiction prof in college who gave us the simple mantra: "Don't deceive." (this was after a discussion about "A million little pieces")
I think a similar attitude can be adopted re: objectivity in journalism. If you're going to editorialize or be creative with the story, there are plenty of segues and clauses that can be peppered in to indicate that what you're about to say is deviating from an otherwise objective account. (eg. "I remember her mumbling something about 'we need more maple syrup' before we drifted off to sleep in the yurt." or "I was furious with him, so the parts I remember were all bookending the expletives he rattled off -- 'your fucking car', 'my shitty job', 'that goddamned dog' -- I felt like he was blaming me for his bad day, but was to enraged to remember clearly.")
If Koenig is up front about her opinions, then I see no problem with this -- the listener can decide what weight they want to give her opinions. Objectivity is only problematic when it is confusingly dissolved with subjectivity, but the two can exist as a heterogeneous mixture.
A question I've often considered is where would we be if all written word/journalism was automatically assumed to be subjective. In a world without objectivity, would subjectivity be "enough?"
I've always seen objectivity as a sort of crutch, something we can lean on to assure ourselves that our initial assumptions and the information we are initially given is inherently "true." But this also falls within the idea that the array of information we are given must also be rigorous, in that we are given anything and everything on any topic.
The idea of objectivity is itself a subjective one, and I think you did a good job of covering that idea. Whether it's the extent to which one can be allowed to be objective - under the assumption that pure objectivity is impossible - or the topics that one is objective on. One cannot cover every topic available to them, and thus the choice of what topic to cover is inherently subjective. Is Topic A more interesting than Topic B? Is Topic B more important to cover than Topic A?
And if we can't even properly address the objectivity within an article or topic or idea, how would one go about addressing the objectivity in addressing the objectivity of those ideas?
Which goes back to my original idea, would total subjective journalism be enough for people? From what I've seen, the controversies or issues people have with journalism is when subjective and objective journalism are misconstrued, when one is assumed to be the other. And if total objectivity is impossible, would total subjectivity be a better goal to strive for, or would it just be means by which people would seek their own confirmation biases?
In a way I think a lot of this is under the assumption that the "average person" doesn't know how to properly consume media, and I think that itself is a huge problem that we need to address?
I actually appreciated how Koenig placed herself into the the story she was telling. However, the mixed feelings I have are about the possible harm she does by doing everything in her power to tell it, specifically the harm to Jay. After reading The Intercept's interview with Jay, I understand better that he never wanted to be a part of the story in how it was told in court, much less a part of a podcast rebuilding that story 15 years later.
I'm still struggling with the ethics of how Jay was dragged back into the story by Koenig, if she is responsible for how some of her fans clearly invaded his privacy, and if this particular cost was worth any beneficial outcome that came from this sort of True Crime reporting. I devoured the series, compelled by the human drama of the thing, and am unsure if even I am not complicit in the erosion of Jay's privacy for use in as he describes it, 'entertainment'.
Koenig argues that it is not entertainment in the construction of the series, but in the consumption of the series, I am unsure if people consumed it as they do journalism. I don't think anything was really learned as a result of this reportage. Even the most winding New Yorker articles focusing on one story step back a few times and look at the larger context. I think this omission prevents this from being defensible as journalism in the same way that This American Life isn't really journalism.
One thing that struck me here is that you mentioned that we want objectivity in the news, which I completely agree with. I want the facts of a story reported to me without those pesky feelings getting in the way. But the problem here is that Serial isn't news in and of itself. Sure, it might generate news, for instance if Adnan's conviction is overturned, or even if he just receives some post-conviction relief, but this is a story from 15 years ago being retold.
I would liken Serial to a 12 part op-ed piece, and not a 12 part news piece. We expect op-eds to have at least some objectivity within them - there should at least be a kernel of truth that they surround - but we shouldn't be surprised when the opinions of the author/journalist show through; the op in op-ed does stand for opinion after all. So does Koenig maintain at least some objectivity throughout? I think so. While she's obviously sympathetic towards Adnan - I agree with her that he shouldn't have been convicted based on the evidenced presented against him, regardless of if he did it or not - she does seem forthcoming with evidence that gives credence to Jay's story, and seems willing to look at existing evidence in a way that might not be good for Adnan. That seems to me like she's trying to present (at least some of) the facts with as little bias as possible.
So, I've argued that there was at least some objectivity to Serial's presentation, but was it presented with enough objectivity? Thinking about it, I guess not. While we're presented with evidence that isn't great for Adnan, we don't really get to see the full story in a clear and concise manner, yet evidence that could overturn Adnan's conviction is often well presented. That calls Koenig's impartiality into question - impartiality that is vital to objectivity.
This isn't a news story, where we want full objectivity from the journalist presenting it, but this isn't a sob story either, one full of emotions and completely lacking in objectivity; it's somewhere in between. While I believe it definitely could have used some more objectivity, I don't think it needs to hit the high mark that many others think it should have. There needs to be some emotion and subjectivity here in order to tell a compelling story. You can't answer the key question - should have Adnan been acquitted? - without the answer being imbued with opinions and beliefs. And perhaps the biggest flaw of Serial, whether explicit or not, was asking the question to begin with.
As a Wikipedia editor, this issue is way too familiar. Giving topics undue weight is often a problem, but what due weight is is probably... Subjective. Well, the guidelines are doing the best they can, anyway.
"I can say one side of an argument like it's the truth and move on with a totally clear conscience." - I don't think you should be proud of that fact, because if you are, then that means we can't trust you. And if we can't trust you, then why should we listen to you?
Comparing climate science and deniers to a topic that we're not sure about is not a valid comparison. We _know_ one is true, and we _know_ the other isn't. We have the facts to back it up. And at the end of the day, Mike, that's the only thing that matters: facts.
And yes, maybe "gathering the facts" is always done by a human, but there's a HUGE, and I cannot stress this enough, *GIGANTIC* difference between "thinking something is probably right" and bias. By bias in journalism, I mean choosing to ignore data, choosing to oversell something as something it's not, and messing with statistics to the point where you get the result you want. That is not okay, and it never should be. In short, everyone may have opinions, but the one thing you can _never_ do, is lie.
Journalism should always be objective. I don't think that it is a coincidence that credibility of journalists has decreased as subjectivity has increased.
For me, the problem lies with doubt. In the end, you aim for total transparency, but it is up to the viewer to believe that you are honest.
Striving for objectivity is important because without it we all too often begin to lean upon conjecture and out own personal biases instead of focusing on what the evidence or the facts are telling us.
Without a striving for objectivity the writer becomes allowed to become the final authority on any given issue, and while I'm not saying that the author should not be allowed to voice their own opinion it should be clearly stated as that writer's opinion when it is given, instead of forcing the reader/watcher to determine for themselves what is that writers opinion and what is simply the facts of the case at hand.
As someone who's played the Phoenix Wright games far too much recently, one of the most important things you need in a case is proof, whether that be in the form of physical evidence or through a (admittedly usually faulty in the games) witness testimony to land a conviction. Any attempts by you or the character you're playing to inject your own opinions or an argument based on conjecture will sooner land you a penalty than it will help you win a case, and for good reason-- just like a prosecutor, lawyer, and judge/jury, whose job is to look at the facts of the case and find the closest approximation to the truth as possible, a journalist that does not strive to find every fact, testimony, and relevant piece of history possible when collecting their story is not only doing a disservice to the truth, they're also doing a disservice to the reader as the journalist unknowingly (or knowingly) injects their own personal philosophies into that readers mind.
Yes. To make a religious allegory as an agnostic, in the sermon on the mount, Jesus lays out a beautiful but incredibly demanding list of tenets by which to live your life, then says, more or less: I don't expect you to live up to them, *but try*. This is the same thing, even if objectivity is impossible, it is your goal, and you should strive for it. Transparency for the sake of bias is not an alternative. Transparency assisting objectivity is something I do support. You should be both objective and transparent.
Giving equal time to both sides of an argument allows for the viewer to view both sides and decide for themselves. It allows for free thinking. When you take away the other argument or deliberately miss represents the facts, then there is no free thought. You are just expected to believe what you are told.
Every text, every lecture, and every tutorial is a political exercise, and those in the field of law or journalism who pretend not to be political are simply more dangerous, not less political.
I think the objectivity of journalists can be better understood if we start thinking of them as we currently think of technology geeks.
What is the best smartphone? You can watch review after review by tons of tech reviewers, all commenting up and down, left and right about a single, real object without ever reaching a "final" or "true" conclusion, nor do we expect any of their reviews to be the final one. Why? Because we all know that how we feel and think about a particular smartphone varies wildly depending on the person. There is only _one_ physical smartphone object. But how different people perceive it is anything but concrete.
And yet, when we can read tons of stories by different journalists about a single, real, physical event, we somehow expect them all to agree on a "final conclusion" about that event. Why do we do that? And why don't we do that regarding tech reviews?
Maybe we should...
Here's an idea: What if the advocates for "objectivity in Journalism" aren't concerned as much about the individual bias of journalists (which will always exist in some form or another) but political and commercial biases in general? True, individual biases and political / commercial biases are, in most cases, interlinked, but that does not make the latter okay. The media, which is pretty much a source for legitimate information for the general public -- who have not "been" at the scene to witness the situation for themselves and make their own interpretations of it -- has a risk of becoming a megaphone of propaganda by powerful organizations with vested interests. Objectivity makes it less susceptible to it.
Although I'm pretty much fine with the idea of "Transparency is the new Objectivity", that still doesn't undermine the need for objectivity to begin with. :)
Quick office hours question: Would it be in bad etiquette to bring a board game to office hours? I don't remember the specific purpose of office hours, and I thought something like Parcheesi or maybe Scrabble would be something fun for us to chat over.
love the 7B on the Snowball stand. really completes the set.
Although objectivity in journalism is very difficult/ impossible. Does not mean it should not be strived for. When in a newspaper/ magazine/ newsroom you have many people who are relying on you to give them the facts you have to take both sides into account when you have people who are looking toward you for the news. This is a serious responsibility people look to you for answers you would be abusing your powers if you where not objective. If journalism is not objective than what difference does it have to propaganda?
I think the bigger supposition is that consensus is objective and the messy conglomeration of everyone's perspective creates a truth. Which in itself is up to subjective debate.
Objectivity should be the ultimate goal of all journalists. Journalism without objectivity is propaganda.
Depends on what you mean when you say objectivity. It doesn't or at least shouldn't mean an absence of bias. Biases form naturally and practically automatically in the mind of the individual when presented with enough information about anythikg. To disclose those biases, your interpretation of the facts, would be an honest and transparent reporting. Lack of objectovity isn't really what morphs reporting into propaganda, it's really a problem with a lack of impartiality, not fully and accurately compiling the facts as they exist to form a preconceived narratove. That's totally different than having impartial methodology of fact gathering, which should be the ideal and the transparent disclosure of the private interpretation of those facts.
My issue with Sarah Koenig's biggest journalistic failure was her treatment of Asia Magowin the woman who could alibi Adnan at the library. She never confronted here about the letter she wrote to Kevin Urich that is a huge issue and she never tired to resolve it.
Objectivity is a nice thing to strive for, but humans are by nature subjective. All information we take in passes through a subjective lens made up of our personal experiences, beliefs, and worldview. Transparency is the solution because if the audience can identify what biases a journalist has, they can take the report with a grain of salt and decide for themselves what to think of the facts presented.
A responsible media consumer will access more than just a single news outlet, knowing that taking a look at multiple perspectives is the best way to gain a clear picture of the situation.