Blog 5

I would define the traditional notion of ‘objectivity’ as the ability to report a story in the most thorough and unbiased way possible without letting personal or professional hindrances interfere with the process. However, as I mentioned in class last week, it is my belief that journalists, at best, can only produce an illusion of objectivity. Journalists are human, too, and they have thoughts and feelings about the subjects, events and people they cover. Readers and management understand this, yet it is of the utmost importance that journalists strive to maintain this goal of “complete” objectivity in an effort to live up to the highest journalistic standards possible. For example, when I was a reporter, I refrained from putting political bumper stickers on my car, because I didn’t want anyone to think that I would intentionally sway any story in a bias manner.  The illusion of objectivity is absolutely key to creating trust and continued communication with readers and sources.

As noted in Art of Fact’s excerpt on James Boswell, “theorists of journalism have long noted parallels to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle in physics: by reporting on something, one subtly but irrevocably changes it.” The mere act of interviewing a source changes the way that person acts, causing them to think carefully about what they say and how they say it. A tape recorder or a video camera, for example, can make the interviewee nervous or unlikely to say what he or she might have said off-tape.

In the Michael Powell interview, Powell discusses the immediacy of current media and how politicians these days would rather play it safe than risk saying something that might hurt their career.

Powell says, “It puts a real premium on being more careful and judicious about your words and your thinking, which I think is good. But sometimes I think it's bad because I think that's why you get political speak out of a lot of politicians -- rather look like you're talking and say nothing than to be candid and maybe regret it. That bothers me because I'm a believer in candor and I like to be pretty straight about what I think about things, but at your peril you have to be sensitive to what you're saying. … This is the new reality.”

This begs the question: if these officials are constantly editing and fixing their words, how objective can a story be? At some point, these interviews just become PR. However, this is an old problem of political/government journalism.

I wanted to point out, too, that the level of emotion involved in covering a story might call into question the notion of objectivity. For example, I was a reporter in Chapel Hill when Eve Carson, UNC-Chapel Hill’s beloved student body president, was brutally murdered in the spring of 2008. I knew her personally from covering various events and I was moved by the literal halting of movement on campus as students sank down in the middle of the quads to sob after hearing the news. I’ll admit, during some interviews, the tears were streaming down my face as I asked the questions. I’d like to think that this emotion on my part contributed positively to my stories on the tragedy; however, I can’t be sure that my own tears didn’t affect someone (or everyone) I spoke with.

Question for the class:

If literary journalists use their skills to cover important topics not necessarily addressed in mainstream media (as Dr. Rodgers alluded to during last week’s class), can they really be objective? Doesn’t the very act of selecting a “worthwhile” subject, say, the dumping of nuclear waste’s harmful effects, contribute to a subjectivity on the part of the reporter’s understanding of what *should* be covered?