Wednesday, September 15, 2010

Truth & Objectivity: Can journalists really achieve them in practice?

This week Kellie, Jess and I were presenting the topic ‘Truth & Objectivity:  Postmodern casualty or PR piracy’. After much research and reading, I came to the conclusion that truth and objectivity in journalism are rather complex and at times, problematic concepts.

On one hand we have those who see objectivity and truth as an achievable outcome in journalistic practice, and on the other are those who say there is no such thing as absolute truth and objectivity in journalism.

The postmodern perspective argues that there is no absolute or certain truth, rather there are a series truths and knowledge is relative and somewhat fallible (Tickle, 2001). The underlying assumption is that truth is a social construction that can never be absolute. We can only ever have an incomplete, subjective version of any event based on one journalist’s account.

Of course this has come under fire by critics because this perspective implies that the very nature of what journalists do as the fourth estate of society is ultimately questionable. Journalism was founded on the very principles of uncovering the truth as an objective observer.

I seem to lie in the middle of these two arguments. Yes, the postmodern perspective is quite accurate in capturing the essence of journalism today, but the concepts of truth and objectivity are still valuable to the integrity and professionalism of journalism. Whether journalists can portray the absolute truth in an objective way is key to this discussion.

So why is it impossible for journalists to achieve absolute truth and objectivity?

Market and economic forces have resulted in fewer journalists but more responsibilities leaving them no time for methodological digging into leads (Tickle, 2001), time pressures and deadlines mean journalists are heavily relying on quick sources like media releases and technology make us question, ‘Is what we’re seeing in fact the real thing?’ Take the example of two cameramen filming the same thing right beside each other. Both will invariably have two different perspectives of the same event, not one being more truthful than the other. The last factor is human fallibility. We have biases, subjectivities and emotions and it would be highly unrealistic to assume absolute truth and objectivity can be achieved because we are fundamentally human by nature. Ron Martz, an American reporter concludes “he is human being first and a reporter second” (Cunningham, 2003, p. 32).

Even one of Australia’s flagship current affairs programs like Four Corners can fail to deliver absolute truth and objectivity. They bought a story from a company called Overdose about the world’s terrifying economic future. It turns our however, Overdose is funded by a Swedish enterprise who have radical views on the economy and free markets. This was not disclosed by Four Corners in any shape or form. View the full Media Watch video at:


‘Four Corners, but only one side’ http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3004109.htm


So if we can’t achieve absolute truth and objectivity, where do journalists go from here?
The answer is simple. We need to acknowledge that journalists, like everyone else, can’t deliver absoluteness. “Active acknowledgement of incompleteness by journalists in the end protects journalism from unrealistic demands and unfounded and unfair criticism” (Bowman and McIlwaine, 2001, p. 106).

We need to enquire as deep as possible to unravel as many facets of the truth as we can, verify all facts, use media releases as the basis for investigation not the sole means, and finally remove our opinions. It is through “exhaustive practice” of these things that we will ultimately do our job correctly and also remain as committed as humanly possible to achieving truth and objectivity in practice.

Sources:
ABC. (2010, September 6). Four Corners, but only one side. Media Watch. Retrieved September 11, 2010, from http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3004109.htm

Bowman, L., & McIlwaine, S. (2001). The importance of enquiry. In S. Tapsall & C. Varley Journalism: Theory in Practice (pp. 102-112). South Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Cunningham, B. (2003). Re-thinking Objectivity [Electronic version]. Columbia Journalism Review, 42(2), pp. 24-32. Retrieved Septmeber 13, 2010, from ProQuest database.

Tickle, S. (2001). The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but... In S. Tapsall & C. Varley Journalism: Theory in Practice (pp. 89-101). South Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

1 comment:

  1. Renee, I like how you covered the theoretical side of the argument. In your blog and presentation you've drawn on the example in the text, of two camera-people filming the same footage and ultimately seeing and capturing two different things.
    It is humbling to remember that journalists are human beings, as you've stated. But journalists also have a responsibility to bring the news to the people, and this can only be done through thorough fact-checking and the removal of bias.

    ReplyDelete