Can a journalist be truly and 100% objective?

Question

One of the core values of journalists is objectivity: reporting without interference of your own mindset, thoughts, ideas, emotions, and preferences. You need to tell the facts how they are. But is this possible? We all see the world in a different way. What I see, might not be noticed by you. For instance, two journalists reporting on the same news event will write two different stories. Because they see different things, and practice a different selection of facts. And selection is an action based on personal preference.

In other words; Does true objectivity exist?

Answer 1

Objectivity might exist, but editing also exists. Even the most objective of journalistic reports can be edited to reflect several different biases, some of them conflicting! Even with total observational objectivity, a reporter cannot see everything, nor can he or she think of every single ramification of every turn of phrase. I have seen instances where journalists have been unintentionally biased, i.e., wrote in a certain style, only to have accusations of bias and worse thrown at them. Not meaning to offend, but managing to offend nonetheless. There is no way a journalist can cover every angle to a story at once, and most publications have at least some editorial influence that causes bias to appear in stories that would otherwise be more objective. No journalist is omniscient, nor does he or she necessarily write in a vacuum.

Answer 2

No, it doesn't exist. But this is similar to the idea that "everything's relative" - everything IS relative; but for practical purposes we can assume many absolutes.

Journalistic objectivity only requires that the journalist examine what ways s/he knows the narrative *could* be biased, and include all the observations that each different viewpoint would want to emphasize. That's the best a journalist can do - include all the information and let the reader do the filtering of the story. Selection of facts is bias, and objectivity is just consciously including all facts that are known. In a truly objective story, all known facts are presented, and the reader is left to draw conclusions.

Of course, it's harder for a journalist to self-police for how things are phrased, and in what order the facts are presented. That's not objectivity, it's the *art* of writing a deliberately "balanced" narrative, in an effort to *influence* the conclusion drawn by the reader. It's here, not in the selection of facts, that bias becomes a thorny problem. Because the available facts sometimes tend to make a story seem biased.

For example. a journalist may get many details about a crime from the police, and the name of a person who is charged. But the defendant only offers a statement about not being guilty. The journalist presents the facts, the name, the statement - and thinks, oh, most people who read this are likely to assume the charged person is guilty. So the journalist goes around collecting commentary from the defendant's friends, "I know him and he'd never" blah blah, and tacks that on. This is not objective. It's not precisely bias, either.

But it is bad journalism in my book, because the point of journalism is to bring facts to the reader *so that the reader can make their own conclusion based on all the facts the journalist can find.* A journalist should trust the reader to make his/her own judgment. A journalist with good objectivity is just careful to associate facts with their sources, and not to leave any facts out that any biased party would think is relevant.

Answer 3

I don't think anyone can ever be 100% objective. Objectivitiy is something that I always strive for and yet it really is impossible to be totally objective. You will find that objectivity is very closely related to passion/emotion....more accurately, they seem to be at odds with each other and almost inversely proportional. Generally, the more passionate you are about a subject, the harder it becomes to remain objective.

The only way you could be 100% objective is to have no emotion at all....which basically, no human can do.

You should check out the movie "Zero Effect"....its a funny but interesting film about the world's best detective. He claims he is able to solve problems by being completely observant and objective....but you can see that it affects his life socially. You can see the progression in him though as he gains more emotion, he loses objectivity.

Answer 4

I think that absolute objectivity does not exist. When a journalist says that it is truly objective I think that it is just a tame statement about how does he regard his own work.

As you correctly exemplified, two different journalists see the same event under two different points of view. There is a latent ideology in all of us: one side or the opposite lies under any judgement.

Who has the absolute truth, in order to qualify a work as the most objetive?

Answer 5

No I don't think so for more or less the reasons you stated. Even the most serious War correspondent will embellish his report. I have experience of poetic licence and in my case it painted the picture completely different to what it actually was. When I complained to the Magazine involved they told me all reporters and writers do it. They have to sell their story and it has to sound good. Never mind the people they damage eh! It is always the writers own perspective of what really happened.

Answer 6

I don't think that anyone can ever be truly objective, purely because of our nature. We were all brought up to think in different ways, and, just like right or wrong, some people will see something as 'wrong' as other people will see it as 'right'.
As these ideas are instilled in us whilst we're growing up, it's inherent in our nature.
Therefore I don't think that true objectivity can ever exist because as soon as you become old enough to comprehend a situation, your nurturer is getting you to think about it in a certain way

Answer 7

I don't think true objectivity is possible - everyone is a product of their experiences and upbringing. It is simply impossible to be unbiased. The best you can do is concede that there are two sides to every story, and seek out the side that seems wrong to you.

Answer 8

We declare there is not any god a similar way you declare there is not any invisible hippo on your roof, no fairies on your backyard and no god with a hammer generating thunder. you may't rather practice that those issues do not exist, yet you stay your existence as if they don't particularly thankfully and no one accuses you of not being purpose. Face it, you absolutely can't position self belief in each and every thing which could probable exist. you ought to %. some issues that appear like they could logically exist, or issues for which there is sturdy information. Do you're making a similar accusation adversarial to those who do not position self belief in Santa? i'm having of venture that you do not.

Answer 9

for a journalist no, but sometimes its not ur fault, sometimes u get the wrong facts

sure we say- we bombed some terrorist building in iraq,

but even with all of our aiming equipment sometimes we miss

but on al jazero-they bombed the school house

and ofcourse they wont point out the terrorist out as much just as us bombing the schoolhouse

we only tell what makes our side sound best sometimes

Answer 10

Possibley if you were a zen buddhist journalist you may achieve total objectivity