Week 4: Assignment and Student Response

ThursdayDec 7 at 10:21pm

Manage Discussion Entry

After reading Climate Change in the Newsroom: Journalists’ Evolving Standards of Objectivity When Covering Global Warming and evaluating objectivity in journalism, I do think there is a significant difference in objective environmental reporting from other types of reporting. Nevertheless, I don't think that makes these news stories any less valid, I just think the typical way objectivity is defined in most news reporting isn't applicable to environmental journalism—as highlighted in the article.

In one analysis of objective journalism techniques, the authors wrote, "It was believed that objective journalism would benefit the public by providing unembellished and unbiased presentations of facts from which people could formulate their own conclusions" (Holbert & Zubric, 2000). Environmental journalism doesn't necessarily follow this form of objectivity because it has already formulated certain conclusions, like humans have contributed to climate change—though the how is still debatable (Hiles & Hinnant, 2014)—because of consensus among scientists in the field.

On the other hand, the analysis conducted by Holbert and Zubric also stated that objectivity was "a way to delineate facts from feelings, truths from opinions...It was hoped that the extraction of reporter biases would yield a more pure form of news reporting based singularly on facts—not absolute facts, but verified, consensual facts" (2000). With this definition, some aspects of objectivity carried over into environmental journalism's altered form of objectivity—which was changed out of necessity. The reason I believe aspects have carried over is because of the end of that quote: "facts—not absolute facts, but verified, consensual facts." In environmental journalism, those facts about climate change are verified in the scientific community and are the current consensual facts.

So, while journalists who cover this topic may have had to redefine objectivity in their reporting to present a more balanced and less argumentative story, they are still meeting journalistic standards of reporting. Furthermore, I agree with the notion that no story can be completely unbiased, and subsequently objective, because of the human factor. But, as stated in Hiles and Hinnant's article, "the very act of choosing a certain story or a certain source is a subjective decision. The best way to show your commitment is to write about it, in an intelligent way, in a fair way, and when the situation calls for it, in a balanced way" (2014).

Tiffany VanVolkinburg

References

Hiles, S. S., & Hinnant, A. (2014). Climate change in the newsroom: Journalists’ evolving standards of objectivity when covering global warming. Science Communication, 36(4), 428-453. doi:10.1177/1075547014534077

Holbert, L. R., & Zubric, S. J. (2000). A comparative analysis: Objective & public journalism techniques. Newspaper Research Journal, (4),