COMM 1114-Freedom of Speech and Democracy

Jameson Altom

COMM 1114-Freedom of Speech and Democracy

Dr. Vickie Christie

Objectivity as Religion

In the worlds of broadcast journalism, print media, and the alternative press, the notion of objectivity is often thought of as sacred, albeit intangible. Like many deities, those in the industry—journalists, reporters, and writers alike—speak of it with reverence, romance, and even fear. Journalists fear objectivity because it can make or break their entire career; devotion to objectivity will result in promotion, whereas noncompliance to the dogma of objectivity will result in expulsion. It is something that is strived for, but is it ever obtained? Perhaps Wes Gallagher, once the General Manager of the Associated Press, said it best during a eulogy for former AP GM Kent Cooper:

“It seems to me that all men and women have a Holy Grail of some kind, something to strive for, something always just beyond our fingertips even with the best of efforts. To the journalist that Holy Grail should be objectivity. To have anything less would be demeaning and would result in the destruction of the profession” (Altschull, 64).

Objectivity, it would seem, is a doctrinal belief. The Christian strives to be as “God-like” as he possibly can. The Buddhist works towards oneness with himself and the universe. The journalist has an entirely different religion, one that deifies the written word. Objectivity, therefore, becomes practiced and perfected in the same manner a religion does. The objectives of all these practitioners, however—the Christian, the Buddhist, the Journalist—are unattainable because they are all of them ideals. But that is not to say they should not be strived for. I believe objectivity can, and should, be present in the press, even if the ultimate attainment of it is as far-fetched as a mortal obtaining parity with the Almighty.

Of course, this is only my opinion. There are a variety of opinions that differ on the essence, or at least the concept, of objectivity, as well as its many characteristics. The Random House Dictionary defines objectivity as “not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudices; based on fact; unbiased.” Many Marxists would argue that objectivity exists in two dimensions: to be objective and to objectify. To be objective is to say what something really is. For example, a chair is a sitting apparatus. To objectify is to pretend, to create a false sense of reality while it “propagates a false ideology” (Altschull, 62). Whatever the case may be, there is no clear consensus on what it truly means to be objective. Even if there is, the issue of whether or not a human being—journalist or otherwise—has the ability to be completely objective persists. J. Herbert Altschull, in his book entitled Agents of Power, says, “Absolute objectivity is impossible to achieve, a fact that has led to interminable, useless discussions.” I personally believe that no person can observe any given event free of interpretation. This is a characteristic that differentiates us humans from most other forms of life, as is ourbelief in ahigher power.

It does not at all stand to reason that, while objectivity is unattainable, it should not be pursued by journalists. They should come as close to the mark as possible because audiences tend to gravitate toward a program (or newspaper or other publication) that coincides with their preexisting biases. For example, Fox News’s slogan contains the words “fair and balanced,” yet is anything but fair and balanced; it is very conservative and, as such, attracts a conservative audience. This is unfortunate but true. On the other end of the political spectrum, those who subscribe to The New Republic or The Village Voice, more left leaning publications, do so because they want to hear/read “objective” news that reaffirms what they already believe; they do not desire the proverbial cold, hard facts. Religious people display a similar tendency (and rightly so). A Catholic priest will only preach a “Catholic” version of the Christian faith and, as it were, only practicing Catholics will subscribe to the words which he is speaking. While this seems logical, it is narrow-minded at best.

Journalists need to be as objective as they can in order to close the enmity between opposing ideologies that at times seem to be irreconcilable. J.S. Mill would argue that no opinion should ever be silenced, that only through exposure to multiple opinions can the truth ever be reached. People, as consumers of information dispensed by the media, need to try and find merit, truth, and validity in multiple outlets. Thus, it is the duty of all journalists—the great “purveyors of truth”—to be as objective as possible. A journalist should not set out to reconcile competing ideologies, but rather provide a zero-sum analysis on the issue at hand so that we may make our own decisions. Certain prejudices are, unfortunately, unavoidable. Nevertheless, it is imperative that the effort be made, lest we lose faith in the omnipresence of CNN.

I have argued that objectivity takes on a religious role in the world of the media. What would happen if all the Mullahs, Monks, Cardinals, and Sheiks began to preach sermons that they determined for themselves to be the truth? Would we ever again be able to think for ourselves? If there is a God, would he rather us simply believe what some man in a robe told us was the truth, or would wish for us to explore ourselves and search for other schools of thought so as to obtain a greater image of who and what He is?

People need to be informed of the world around them, plain and simple. If we, as consumers of information, cannot trust what is put out in front of us, we may as well not listen, read, or question at all. In this sense, religion and objectivity in the press are one in the same.