How do political elites use social media platforms to gain power over people? And what is the relationship between democracy, public culture and media?

Objectivity

We have seen that the specific definitions of news and newsworthiness are, in large measure, the result of the ways reporters organize their work. However, there is more to be learned by exploring the profession of journalism. Consider the concept of objectivity. Most contemporary evaluations of the performance of the American mainstream news media begin or end with claims about their adherence (or lack thereof) to the standard of objectivity and related notions of impartiality, balance, and fairness. Politicians and other public figures routinely criticize the press for its supposed lack of objectivity, charging journalists with taking sides, being too opinionated, or having a routine bias. Even popular discussions of news media often focus on the question of objectivity. The central position of objectivity in American journalism is something we take for granted. We all seem to “know” that the news is supposed to be objective; the problem is that the news often does not live up to this widely shared expectation.

But where did the value of objectivity come from? Why are we so concerned with it? How does the ideal of objectivity affect the daily practice of journalism? Michael Schudson’s (1978) important study, Discovering the News, treats the ideal of objectivity as something to be explained rather than something to be taken for granted. It is a perfect example of how studying professional norms and practices can help us better understand the media.

The Origins of Objectivity

What do we mean by objectivity? Schudson (1978) provides a useful definition: “The belief in objectivity is a faith in ‘facts,’ a distrust of ‘values,’ and a commitment to their segregation” (p. 6). Objectivity is a doctrine that perceives the separation of fact and value as a messy business that requires the use of a method, or set of practices, to ensure their separation. This method is objective journalism. According to Schudson, the concept of objective journalism is a relatively recent development. Only in the years after World War I did objectivity become the dominant value in American journalism.

Prior to World War I, reporters did not subscribe to a belief in what we now term objectivity. The AP—one of the first wire services—tried to present news in a way that would be acceptable to many different papers, and the New York Times used an “information” model of reporting to attract an elite audience. But journalists did not think about the separation of facts and values, nor did they believe that facts themselves were at all problematic. Rather, to journalists before World War I, the facts spoke for themselves. The goal of fact-based journalism was simply to uncover these facts, and doing so did not require a method of objective reporting. The task was straightforward: Find and report the truth. In this era, journalists were confident of their ability to identify the relevant facts and to report them accurately.

This faith in facts held by American journalists was thrown into doubt in the 1920s. Many American reporters had participated in wartime propaganda efforts during World War I. The success of such efforts made them uncomfortable with any simple understanding of “facts.” Having seen how easily facts could be manipulated, journalists became more cynical. They began to mistrust facts, realizing that facts could be made

254

to serve illusion as well as the truth.

At the same time, the field of PR emerged, and professional publicists became early “spin doctors.” They fed information to reporters, carefully controlling access to their powerful clients, and they staged events such as the press conference or photo opportunity expressly for the media. With PR professionals spinning the facts, dispensing information strategically, and shaping a good deal of news content through the use of official handouts or press releases, journalists’ emerging cynicism became even more pronounced.

The recognition that information could be manipulated and the rise of a profession—PR—expressly dedicated to the shaping of public attitudes left journalists with a crisis of confidence about their own ability to report the “facts” in a neutral way. In Schudson’s (1978) account, objectivity emerged as a “scientific” solution to this crisis of confidence—in other words, “a method designed for a world in which even facts could not be trusted” (p. 122). By training would-be reporters in the “scientific” method of objectivity, journalists transformed their fact-based craft into a profession with a particular method. Objectivity, therefore, can be seen as a set of practices or conventions that the professional journalist is trained to follow.

What practices make up this method? W. Lance Bennett (2009), synthesizing the research on the professional norms of journalism, identifies six key practices: (1) maintaining political neutrality; (2) observing prevailing standards of decency and good taste; (3) using documentary reporting practices, which rely on physical evidence; (4) using standardized formats to package the news; (5) training reporters as generalists instead of specialists; and (6) using editorial review to enforce these methods. The practical implication of belief in the ideal of objectivity is adherence to these basic practices.

Objectivity as Routine Practices and Their Political Consequences

The day-to-day routine practices of journalism, more than some abstract conception of objectivity, are key to understanding the news media. News accounts have a tendency to look similar because reporters all follow the same basic routines. They talk to the same people, use the same formats, observe the same basic dos and don’ts, and watch one another closely to make sure that they are not out of step with the rest of the profession. If we understand objectivity to be a set of routine journalistic practices, we can see why all news coverage is pretty much the same. Journalists adhere to the same methods and monitor each other’s work so they produce similar news. In fact, if news differed substantially from outlet to outlet, questions would be raised about the method of objective reporting, likely signaling a new crisis for the profession.

However, following a common set of practices does not ensure the achievement of the ideal of objectivity, that is, the separation of values from facts. Indeed, it can be argued that adherence to the practices associated with objectivity directly benefits particular political interests.

As we have seen, things that happen in and around established institutions, especially official agencies, are defined as news. Happenings outside of these boundaries are likely never to be detected by professional journalists. Even if they are detected, they are not likely to be defined as newsworthy by the established definitions of importance. This is one of the principal reasons why so much news is about the world of

255

officialdom, even when such stories are often routine and predictable. Journalists and news organizations rely on and build their work around the routine and predictability of these established institutions. Newsworthiness, then, is socially constructed. It is not a property inherent in events but is instead something that is attached to happenings by journalists. Once we realize this, the traditional ways we talk about news begin to seem inappropriate. In particular, the metaphor of news as a “mirror”—a simple reflection of events —no longer works. Even a mirror cannot reflect the whole world. It must be facing a particular direction, including some subjects in its reflection and excluding others. Thus, the image propagated by the media is far from complete. At most, it reflects only a small part of society.

In addition, the objects being reflected in the media are not passive. Instead, people holding different interests, wielding different amounts of power, and enjoying different relationships to those producing the news actively attempt to influence the content of the news. Thus, the resulting images often reflect the relative power of actors in our society rather than some “objective” reality.

News, therefore, is the product of a social process through which media personnel make decisions about what is newsworthy and what is not, about who is important and who is not, and about what views are to be included and what views can be dismissed. None of these decisions can be entirely objective. The ideal of objectivity—separating values from facts—is ultimately unobtainable, although some would argue it is a valuable goal. Furthermore, the practices associated with objectivity are tilted in one direction; they give those in power enormous visibility in the media, whereas those outside the centers of power are largely ignored. The reliance on “appropriate,” available, and preferably authoritative sources means journalists talk mostly to government and corporate officials and end up reproducing their view of the world. Thus, “objective” journalism, by highlighting the views and activities of officials, can be seen on balance to favor those in power.

Rejecting Objectivity: Alternative Journalism

As we have seen, objectivity as a standard of U.S. journalism is a fairly recent phenomenon. When the nation’s founders protected the freedom of the press, they were referring to publishers of what were mostly highly partisan pamphlets and periodicals. Through the 19th century, newspapers were often affiliated with political parties, openly arguing from a particular perspective rather than trying to retain a neutral stance on the issues. Although “objective” journalism has displaced this older tradition, “advocacy” or “alternative” journalism has survived and can be found in many forms today.

Atton and Hamilton (2008) argue that alternative media “seek to challenge objectivity and impartiality from both an ethical and a political standpoint.” They challenge the very notion that “it is possible in the first place to separate facts from values and that it is morally and politically preferable to do” (Atton and Hamilton 2008: 84). Alternative journalists not only reject the idea of not getting involved in the story; they seek to play an active role in advancing their causes.

Alternative journalism projects span a wide range of media, including newspapers, magazines, websites, radio programs, and television shows. In recent years, the internet has made alternative journalism more easily accessible and more visible while enabling its unprecedented global expansion (Lievrouw 2011).

256

There is a broad range of work that might be called alternative journalism. Some of it is in the progressive muckraking tradition—fact-based reporting aimed at exposing a social ill or wrongdoing that is being ignored by mainstream media—that dates back to the 19th century. For example, founded in 1976, the nonprofit magazine (and now website) Mother Jones is named after an early labor movement leader and bills itself as “a reader-supported nonprofit news organization [that] . . . does independent and investigative reporting on everything from politics and climate change to education and food” (Motherjones.com 2018). It has won numerous awards for its investigative reporting as well as the American Society of Magazine Editors’ Magazine of the Year Award in 2017.

Other efforts are aimed at broadening the range of perspectives available in the news. Democracy Now! is “a daily, global, independent news hour.” As its website notes, the program’s

reporting includes breaking daily news headlines and in-depth interviews with people on the front lines of the world’s most pressing issues. On Democracy Now!, you’ll hear a diversity of voices speaking for themselves, providing a unique and sometimes provocative perspective on global events. (Democracynow.org 2018)

Some efforts take advantage of the internet to build international links. For example, the global network Indymedia offers what it bills as “a network of collectively run media outlets for the creation of radical, accurate, and passionate tellings of the truth” (Indymedia.org 2018). Indymedia activists do not aim at being objective; they take sides, presenting a typically left or progressive view on issues of the day.

Conservative activists have also created their own media forms that blend news and opinion. Breitbart News has become the most high-profile online destination for extreme right news and commentary. Created in 2005 by conservative activist Andrew Breitbart (who died in 2012), Breitbart.com garnered international attention when its chief executive, Steve Bannon, left Breitbart to run Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. Bannon would subsequently become President Trump’s chief strategist, leave the White House to return to Breitbart a few months later, and ultimately lose his job at Breitbart in the wake of a conflict with the Trump family. Breitbart’s association with the Trump campaign and its aggressively conservative attitude made it a prominent site for political news in far right circles. In addition, websites like Townhall—a commercially owned operation—assemble what it describes as “political commentary and analysis from over 100 leading columnists and opinion leaders, research from 100 partner organizations, conservative talk-radio and a community of millions of grassroots conservatives. Townhall.com is designed to amplify those conservative voices in America’s political debates” (Townhall.com 2018). The site links to hundreds of conservative bloggers.

At their best, efforts that—through well-reasoned, fact-based reporting—broaden the range of perspectives or tackle issues overlooked by mainstream commercial media can make a substantial contribution to keeping people informed and engaged, even when they clearly approach the issues from a particular political viewpoint. But at their worst, some partisan media—whether bitter cable talk shows on mainstream media or alternative websites—can also contribute to political polarization and the propagation of falsehoods. If people immerse

257

themselves only in media that confirm their preexisting beliefs and play to their prejudices, it is unlikely that they will understand the arguments of opponents, be able to productively discuss issues with people who hold different opinions, or find the kind of common ground necessary for a healthy functioning democracy. Instead, relying solely on such media may contribute to the entrenched and bitterly divisive politics of recent years.

As we have seen, news media production is the result of a series of conventions and routines that enable professionals collectively to do their jobs and meet the demands of the organizations for which they work. These conventions incorporate fundamental professional norms (e.g., objectivity) and basic organizational goals (e.g., gathering news). Routine media practices shape, to a great degree, the final media products.

We have also seen that technological changes can alter these routines and that some media reject some of these conventions—most notably the idea of objectivity—to create new forms of reporting and opinion.

258

Occupational Roles and Professional Socialization

Journalists are not the only media professionals who follow routine practices. Analyzing work practices and professional norms can help us understand other media as well. Let’s turn to two additional examples— photographers and book editors—and place them in the context of roles.

259