The American news media has long held objectivity as a tenet of journalistic integrity. While, of course, this is never fully attainable - bias creeps in through the selection of headlines and photographs, through word choice, through the internal ordering of quotes in the report and so on - the goal of attempting to keep journalists' personal opinions out of their reporting is a noble one.
However, this ideal has been redefined by a tendency to navigate the middle ground of all debates, most perniciously in a sort of "he said/she said" journalism. This technique, which has become practically ubiquitous, involves "presenting both sides of the issue:" giving equal airtime to opposing viewpoints without ever attempting to investigate the facts of the matter. While sometimes more voices allow for a fuller understanding, often this method is misleading, as it gives a facade of validity to unsupported or simply false arguments.
Consider, for instance, an event generally held as a paragon of journalistic accomplishment - the media exposure of the Watergate scandal. It cannot be denied that that journalists Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein played a primary role in bringing down a Republican administration - tarnishing the reputations of numerous right-wing officials, setting into motion a chain of events that led to the impeachment and resignation of the Republican president and linking the party with scandal and corruption in the minds of innumerable Americans for God-only-knows-how-long. It would be absurd, however, to claim that the story should have been suppressed for the sake of "objectivity." History lauds these reporters for their actions. Today, however, they would probably be denounced for their "partisan attacks" and "biased, activist journalism" - not only by those threatened by their coverage but also by the very news media they represent. Can you imagine how the story would play out if it happened in today's climate of overzealous, misguided "fairness?" It would be a farce: Woodward on one half of the screen, presenting his case, with some Nixon aide on the other half, denying everything. No matter that one man has extensive research, reliable sources and, in short, the facts on his side, while the other man is lying like a rug. The news media would present both and consider it a job well done - thorough and balanced coverage.
In addition to failing in the primary purpose of journalism - ferreting out the truth of current events and presenting them to the public - this "he said/she said" presentation engenders a further problem. By only giving airtime to the opposing extremes of any issue, the media sets up a false dichotomy and showcases an artificially polarized depiction of the range of opinions involved. There are often more than just two sides to a story, and most alternative views are less extreme than those presented by talking-head pundits vying for the best sound bite.
Furthermore, the strange parity created by this presentation makes the entire concept of truth seem nebulous. As Lewis Black puts it, "If everything seems credible, then nothing seems credible. You know, TV puts everybody in those boxes, side-by-side. On one side, there's this certifiable lunatic who says the Holocaust never happened. And next to him is this noted, honored historian who knows all about the Holocaust. And now, there they sit, side-by-side, they look like equals! Everything they say seems to be credible. And so, as it goes on, nothing seems credible anymore! We just stopped listening!"
The gist of objectivity is not to make sure you are representing viewpoints different from your own but rather to make sure that, as far as possible, your personal opinions don't influence your presentation. The media these days, however, has conflated the admirable precept of avoiding support of one particular side due to personal beliefs with the misguided notion of avoiding bolstering a side because the evidence demands it. One cannot juxtapose facts with falsehoods as though both were of equal validity. Sometimes the facts of the case happen to come out for or against a particular "side" of a debate. To obscure that is dishonest.
Objectivity should entail a search for the objective truth. Debates about the nature of ontology aside, this goal, however unfeasible in reality, is a worthy one, which has unfortunately been all but replaced by the mantra of "fairness." Are we being fair to both sides? Are we giving them equal representation? If the media wants to present multiple opinions on a story, fine - but the journalistic responsibility does not end there. There is also the obvious necessity of actually going out into the world and ascertaining the facts of the matter, as well as they can be reckoned. They're supposed to be journalists, for God's sake. Slapping two opposing opinions up on the screen is not the same as reporting the news. That is not objectivity - it is intellectual laziness, it is deception and it is doing a great disservice to the American people.
Karla Bertrand '09 is a big fan of "facts," despite being an opinions columnist.
