HOME
          
LATEST STORY
Opening up the archives: JSTOR wants to tie a library to the news
ABOUT                    SUBSCRIBE
Dec. 2, 2009, 1 p.m.

On transparency, objectivity, and the near occasion of subjectivity

Over the past several months, much has been said about transparency being the new objectivity in journalism. As news organizations figure out whether they’ll use social media, and, if so, how they’ll use it, the phrase has been popping up more and more in the blogosphere.

I agree with that sentiment to a point, and I support the idea of transparency whole-heartedly. But at the risk of sounding like the glutton who wants her proverbial cake and to eat it, too, I ask: Why can’t we have both? Why can’t we aim for both objectivity and transparency?

Objectivity is unattainable in my mind unless robots begin to replace journalists (and even then, there’s still the opinions of the humans programming the robots.) But I think it’s a goal worth shooting for. Journalists should, I believe, try with all their might to show all sides (not just two) of a story, to be fair, to be accurate, to hold their own opinions in check in the telling. Even viewpoints we disagree with should get the airing of open discourse.

I agree with those who say transparency is so important now because it is intrinsic to the way people use the Internet. We want to know why we should trust the people we’re reading. We want to know what they think. But I’d go one step farther and argue that transparency was always important, even in the days of print-only publications before the Web took off.

Avoiding the near occasion of subjectivity

Back in the old pre-Web days, we pretended the goal was avoiding the near occasion of subjectivity, not true objectivity.

We, as journalists, did things to make sure it didn’t appear that we had opinions, or beliefs, or baggage from our own lives that might impact what stories we told or the telling itself. In our effort to appear objective, we didn’t cease to feel things or believe things. We just refrained from telling our readers what we thought and felt and believed. And, somehow, we thought that would make us objective.

I’ve been thinking about this concept a lot because, for the past 20 years, when I worked as a reporter or editor at newspapers, I played by the “avoid the near occasion of subjectivity” rules. I was registered to vote, but I did not enroll in an political party. I didn’t donate to political parties or candidates. I never signed a petition for a candidate or a cause. No campaign signs dotted my lawn. Even as recently as a year ago, I didn’t publicly rejoice on Facebook or Twitter when Barack Obama won.

Then in June, I took a buyout, left the newspaper business, and promptly enrolled in a political party. (Democrat. I know you’re wondering.) For the first time in my adult life, I felt like a full-fledged citizen.

Then I questioned myself: Was I objective and fair during the course of my career? I think so, although, of course, my own way of seeing the world is shaped by what has happened in my life and what I believe. I gravitated to stories that gave voice to the voiceless. Was that my bleeding heart liberal beliefs oozing in, or was that just the right thing to do? Who knows?

Did I try to be objective? Sure. Was I always objective? Probably not. There’s no way to tell. We journalists get around that concept by salving our egos with the adage: If I’ve ticked off both sides, I’ve done my job. But in reality, does that make sense? Is making all your sources mad really a measure of success? Couldn’t that just mean you did a horrendous job and failed to capture the essense of the story?

What I didn’t do is be transparent.

Now, upon reflection, I realize that was wrong. By not telling people what I thought or felt or believed, I may have been avoiding the near occasion of subjectivity, but I wasn’t being a better journalist. I wasn’t building trust with readers. Refraining to tell readers where I was coming from didn’t make me objective. It just failed to make me transparent.

I’d suggest that perhaps there are journalists out there who really don’t care who wins or loses an election or who don’t have an opinion on the president’s health-care plan, abortion, or same-sex marriage. Perhaps there are journalistic automatons who feel nothing, who aren’t captivated by the politics of the day, who lack passion or principle.

Why transparency

As for me, I don’t want people like that giving me the news. I don’t want people who feel nothing making sense of the world for me. I want journalists who both know what’s going on and care deeply about it. I want journalists who are versed in the issues and understand the ramifications of all sides of those issues. I don’t want journalists who fear the near occasion of subjectivity.

I want journalists who are bold and perhaps sometimes brash but who aren’t afraid to tell it like it is. I want journalists who feel something way down in the pit of their beings, and who aren’t afraid to show it.

Let me be clear. I’m not saying you insert that opinion in a news story. I’m saying that you don’t hide the fact that you have opinion. I’m saying you disclose opinions and say, “Hey, reader, here’s where I’m coming from.” I fully believe you can still write an objective news story while having beliefs. In fact, I know you can. I spent a career doing that.

I’m just staying we pull those beliefs out of hiding and disclose them, so the readers can decide more fully if we’re being objective or not.

Will some readers accuse you of bias? Of course. But then again, that happens now.

To me, the answer to this battle over objectivity versus transparency is to stop the fight. Call a draw. Both are noble goals. Focus on transparency, and greater objectivity will follow.

Journalism as an industry needs people with passion, opinions, beliefs. Having these feelings — and expressing them — won’t harm objectivity. If anything, it will enhance it.

Photo by Gisela Giardino used under a Creative Commons license.

POSTED     Dec. 2, 2009, 1 p.m.
SHARE THIS STORY
   
Show comments  
Show tags
 
Join the 15,000 who get the freshest future-of-journalism news in our daily email.
Opening up the archives: JSTOR wants to tie a library to the news
Its new site JSTOR Daily highlights interesting research and offers background and context on current events.
Six fresh ideas for news design from a #SNDMakes designathon
New media and legacy media came together at the second weekend-long “hackathon” hosted by the Society for News Design.
Where you get your news depends on where you stand on the issues
A new study by the Pew Research Center examines how Americans’ news consumption habits correlate with where they fall on the political spectrum.
What to read next
1020
tweets
The newsonomics of the millennial moment
The new wave of news startups is aiming at a younger audience. But do legacy media companies have a chance at earning their attention?
803A mixed bag on apps: What The New York Times learned with NYT Opinion and NYT Now
The two apps were part of the paper’s plan to increase digital subscribers through smaller, targeted offerings. Now, with staff cutbacks on the way, one app is being shuttered and the other is being adjusted.
537Watching what happens: The New York Times is making a front-page bet on real-time aggregation
A new homepage feature called “Watching” offers readers a feed of headlines, tweets, and multimedia from around the web.
These stories are our most popular on Twitter over the past 30 days.
See all our most recent pieces ➚
Encyclo is our encyclopedia of the future of news, chronicling the key players in journalism’s evolution.
Here are a few of the entries you’ll find in Encyclo.   Get the full Encyclo ➚
Patch
Gannett
Global Voices
Tampa Bay Times
Los Angeles Times
The Sunlight Foundation
Alaska Dispatch
ESPN
Bloomberg Businessweek
Davis Wiki
Amazon
Suck.com