Redefining Journalism: A Conceptual History of Objectivity and Balance in American Journalism
Published for 2008, RIPE@2008Alan G. Stavitsky
Senior Associate Dean and Professor, and Director, Turnbull Portland Center, School of Journalism and Communication, University of Oregon, USA
Abstract
How do journalists sift and winnow the limitless number of possible items that could conceivably be reported as “news” to determine which stories will be read, seen or heard across the range of communication channels? Though journalists may resist the notion, media sociologists argue that news is a social construction. “To say that a news report is a story, no more, but no less is not to demean news, nor to accuse it of being fictitious,” wrote sociologist Gaye Tuchman. “Rather, it alerts us that news, like all public documents, is a constructed reality possessing its own internal validity.” To understand objectivity and balance – as both idea and application – across the history of American journalism, then, requires consideration of fundamental questions about the nature of news and, as a corollary, the professionalism of journalists.
This historical review indicates that objectivity and balance is multi-dimensional in concept and practice. It has been manipulated for political purposes, commodified to gain commercial advantage (as in Fox’s “Fair and Balanced” promotional slogan), and – in extraordinary times such as the Red Scare, Vietnam and Watergate – even suspended. Journalists need to understand this conceptual and practical ambiguity, for it sends us back to the clarity of journalism’s core principle: “to provide people with the information they need to be free and self-governing.”
Journalism in the digital age is no longer a spectator sport. It is daunting to serve audience members who have seen behind the curtain and have the technology to bypass us, to say nothing of producing their own content. In this mediascape it is no longer sufficient to rely upon a legacy concept such as objectivity and balance, which is laden with ambiguity and contention. We must reconceptualize objectivity and balance to account for profound structural and technological change. This has significant practical implications for public media professionals around the globe.