Journalism and the loss of objectivity
The fundamental role of the free press in sustaining democracy is not disputed. This is an unquestionable fact. In fact, democracy and press are Siamese twins, since democracy presupposes the existence of free press and there would be no press without democracy. But the main media outlets are losing the journalistic objectivity that is crucial for an unbiased, in-depth, and informative coverage.
Certain governments, sectors and commercial clients of media companies are spared the most in-depth and hard-hitting information in their news reports. Natural if you take into account that the media industry is a business like any other and therefore needs to be run in a profit-making manner. But this is not what is expected of professional journalism.
Professionals in the press need to investigate, interview, research, check data, listen to all parties involved, and write so that the news is accurate, unbiased, impartial, and factual. And they must take responsibility for what they publish. These are vital rules for journalism and, without them, the profession cannot sustain itself. This is what is called journalistic objectivity, a kind of utopia of the sector, for which the search is incessant. An ideal to be reached. This is what differentiates journalists from blockers, influencers, or all sorts of free activities on social networks. The latter, unlike the former, write what suits them in a subjective and opinionated way, and because they do not have the duties and privileges of the journalistic function, they are not accorded the same credibility and legal protection. That is why it has been agreed in the ideal of journalism to adopt the criterion of the search for objectivity as a way to ensure more balance and fairness in the coverage.
It turns out that this objectivity has been compromised. There are even academic critics and some journalists who maintain that objectivity is no longer a stated goal of journalism, since it cannot be achieved, given the journalist's subjective bias when preparing a report.
In Brazil, one of the country's leading newspapers, Folha de São Paulo, has constantly addressed the issue, in articles dated March 18, April 15,17, and 22. In all these articles, the great danger of "renouncing objectivity" is repeated, thus putting an end to "professional journalism" and turning journalists into mere militants. But then the question remains: why the debate about the possible abandonment of objectivity in journalism? Are media companies and journalists surrendering to the pleasures of the likes of their reports, acting like bloggers in a headlong rush to social networks to convey impulsive feelings, sarcasm, and false moralism?
It is time for a self-critical review.
An important part of the Brazilian press should make a deep revision of itself. At no time is questioned, for example, what happened to the journalistic objectivity of Folha, O Globo, Estadão, Jornal do Brasil, Correio da Manhã and other large professional press vehicles, when they supported the Brazilian military dictatorship, or covered Lava Jato. Instead of journalistic objectivity, there was, in addition to biased reporting, the permissive silence as analyzed by researcher Álvaro Nunes Larangeira, in an article on Silencios permissivos: os cadernos especiais da Folha de S. Paulo e Jornal do Brasil no 10º ano do regime militar.
There are many contradictions that call into question the way media companies use rules and techniques to circumvent objectivity. It is nothing new that every commercial business has specific interests. The problem is trying to play the impartiality game, as if not expressly supporting a political party, government, or opposition means that the media company is ideologically neutral. Or even using the version of a supposed "source" to publish biased reports.
The former executive editor of the Washington Post, Martin Baron, says that abandoning objectivity would be a serious flaw in journalism and that he notes with concern a growing repudiation of this principle in the press itself. He argues that, "contrary to what its detractors say, objectivity does not mean neutrality, but investigating as impartially as is humanly possible, recognizing that facts are always complex and that journalists must be willing to listen and eager to learn in order to overcome limitations and do their jobs. The former editor goes on to say, "much attention has been paid recently to objectivity in journalism.... I'm about to do something tremendously unpopular in my profession these days: defend the idea."
Martin Baron goes on to say that if we want other professions, such as doctors, judges, scientists, policemen, politicians, to act in an objective way, without pre-existing agendas or biases, the journalist also needs to pursue this objectivity, i.e., a fair, honest, accurate, accurate, rigorous, impartial, and open to evidence finding is at the basis of professional journalism. Society expects journalists to be objective as well. Thus, to ignore these expectations is an act of arrogance. It shows leniency with bias and betrays the cause of truth.
Walter Lippman, one of the most influential advocates of journalistic objectivity published, in 1920 "Liberty and the News," in which he claimed, even then, that "there is everywhere an increasingly angry disillusionment with the press, a growing sense of people being perplexed and feeling deceived." He feared an environment in which people "cease to react to truths and react simply to opinions, to what someone claims, not to what actually is." He was concerned that people "believe whatever most comfortably matches their preconceived ideas." His diagnosis was very similar to that which causes us so much concern today: democratic institutions were under threat. He saw journalism as essential to democracy, but in order to fulfill its purpose, it needed standards.
Lippmann recognized that we all have preconceived ideas, but wrote that "we will accomplish more by fighting for the truth than by fighting for our theories." So he called for "as impartial an investigation of the facts as is humanly possible. This is where the idea of objectivity came in: an investigation of the facts as impartially as is humanly possible.
Objectivity is not neutrality. It is not "on the one hand this, on the other hand that" journalism. It is not false equivalence. It is not giving equal weight to opposing arguments when the vast majority of evidence points in one direction.
Nor is the principle of objectivity meant to suggest that journalists are free from bias. As Tom Rosenstiel, a professor of journalism at the University of Maryland, and former managing editor Bill Kovach wrote in their book "Elements of Journalism. " The term was born out of the growing recognition that journalists are full of biases, often unconscious." Thus, "objectivity required them to develop a consistent method for testing information, a transparent approach to evidence, precisely so that their personal and cultural biases would not undermine the accuracy of their work." Thus "it is not the journalist who is objective, but the method, and the key lies in the discipline of the craft."
Journalism should not be the authority, but should act as the one who reports the facts.
The idea is that the journalist starts the research with an open mind, with a willingness to listen, a desire to learn, and to set out to discover what he doesn't know. This is called reportage work.
Dean Baquet, former executive editor of the New York Times, commented in 2021, that "one of the great crises of our profession is the erosion of the primacy of reporting work. Certainty is one of the enemies of great reporting work."
All these points suggest that the journalist should avoid arrogating to himself the position of moral authority. He should avoid semi-ready reporting, where the choice of sources is an exercise in confirmation of bias, and where one seeks to hear the voice of the other side (often at the last minute) only because this is required, not as an essential ingredient of honest investigative work. This should sound familiar to many people who have lived through the political events and criminal investigations of recent years in Brazil. It is the reason why journalistic objectivity is a must.
And to conclude, I return to the words of former editor Martin Baron: "We have often failed embarrassingly and badly. In many cases we have done wrong by mistakes of action and mistakes of omission. Because of haste and neglect, because of prejudice and arrogance. We can and should have a vigorous discussion about how democracy and the press can best serve the public. However, the answer to our failings as a society and as a professional category is not to renounce our principles and standards. There is too much of that going on today. The answer is to reaffirm the principles of objectivity in journalism. So, I will end here, society and democracy would benefit greatly if journalism had more humility and less arrogance.
