People are taught that a journalist should be objective, that they should show both sides of the story equally without letting their feelings, often political, interfere. Feelings create a conflict of interest and should be avoided, especially when reporting situations like disasters or politics.
Journalists should write the facts from both sides of the story, showing both opinions and letting readers decide for themselves what the facts mean in the overall scheme of things.
So I’ve been told, anyway. As a new and learning journalist, these are some of the attitude’s I have noticed from those teaching and those reading the work in my field.
Objectivity is not showing both sides of the story, but it is showing all sides of the story. There are almost always more than two ways to write a story, more than just two or three types of sources and more than two ways the news, whatever it may be, affects the people involved.
Objectivity is not showing all of the sides of a story equally, but showing them for what they are. For example, if there is overwhelming scientific evidence that the earth is a sphere but half of the news article was focused on sketchy evidence the earth was flat, the article would be giving equal attention to both sides of the story. However, the article would not be giving attention to the truth.
Writing ethically and objectively usually takes more time and takes significantly more research. Journalism strives to reveal facts and make them understandable for everyone. Part of this requires diversity in the field, allowing journalists who understand minorities to report on them in more accurate and understandable ways.
Remaining objective is only a portion of the ethical dilemma for a journalist. The other part is a conflict of interest caused by some of the most human traits in the world; empathy, fascination and a desire to problem solve.
To elaborate, these characteristics combined with the knowledge from extensive research involved in writing a story is bound to lead the journalist to form some sort of opinion about what they are reporting on.
The Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics says “journalists should avoid conf licts of interest, real or perceived” and they should “disclose unavoidable conflicts.” A conflict of interest is often interpreted as a journalist not reporting on an issue they are or were previously involved with.
Given that, let’s look at a hypothetical scenario involving journalists and their coverage. If a journalist grows up as a Black person in a Black community and later on wants to report on the issues in Black communities, does that mean there is a conflict of interest? Could the journalist report on those issues without letting their own feelings get in the way? Would the public perceive a conflict of interest because a Black reporter is covering Black communities?
This is an example of some of the larger ethical questions journalists face today. Often being the most knowledgeable people about an issue, if a journalist who wishes to contribute their knowledge of a situation to the cause in more effective ways cannot do so because of this conflict of interest. The only way a journalist can apply their knowledge to an issue effectively is to inform the readers of the most important facts.
But how can they do that if the public’s idea of objectivity is to provide equal attention to just the two most prominent sides of a story? Journalists can’t. Understanding how the information in an article is chosen is essential to reading the news.
Readers should take action to help solve America’s issues by using the information made available to them by the media, educating themselves even more about issues needing to be resolved and understanding that journalists are human too.
Anteia McCollumcan be reached [email protected] on Twitter@antxiam5.