One of the Atlantic's crack team of interns has pointed out to me that many of the arguments I've made here about the press, objectivity, and getting spun were summed up in proper essay/argument form by Brent Cunningham in a 2003 Columbia Journalism Review article called "Rethinking Objectivity." Rather than balance that out with the observation that "some critics" think this intern is wrong, I'll just conclude with the fact that he was, in fact, correct and you should read Cunningham's article.
« David Simon, Matchmaker | Main | Fog of Growth »
Rethinking Objectivity
10 Aug 2007 08:46 am
Comments (6)
Matt's obviously just gotten too cozy with the DC Intern crowd to report on them objectively.
This article is refreshing in that it identifies the problem, but it lacks a solution. The two questions that are paramount to determining the objective knowledge content in a narrative are "What do you want to accomplish at the end of your effort?" and "How do you intend on accomplishing that goal?". Regardless of whether or not I or anyone else shares the goal given as the answer to the first question, the second question becomes criticizable. Objective knowledge must be criticizable, uncritizable information is subjective and cannot be evaluated with logic. As a recipient of this information, I can decide whether or not I share that goal and whether or not the proposed effort will, in fact, achieve the stated goal.
This is the only way to present information which does not make assumptions about the reader or the subject.
The way truth is inserted into the discussion muddies the ability to be objective. "The Truth" is defined as the most efficient means for reaching a goal, it is criticizable and objective, yet no goal is itself objective. "The Truth" is completely relative to it's subjective goal, having no context on it's own and therefore no independent meaning. It is backwards to look for "The Truth" before defining a goal.
Logic cannot be used to justify even the most basic of goals such as self-preservation, the belief that justification of goals exists under rationality is a widespread logical fallacy. Even such a fundamentally shared goal as self-preservation is subjective. That all but the suicidal share this goal is irrelevant to objective knowledge, but obviously relevant to survival. To illustrate, at the end of the article where they describe Martz's actions in Iraq, it is silly to think that a consumer of news would trust a news source that did not share the goals of acting with compassion and humanity. After all, every society capable of producing news organizations and publishing information on this level requires the shared goals of mutual self-defense. Acting humanely and compassionately is basic to that self-defense. To not support those goals is to martyr oneself to an fallacious idea of objectivity which disregards self-preservation. In short, for any given goal that a news organization could have without being self-defeating, such claims of objectivity as being above the fray in this manner, has nothing to do with truth or objectivity.
being an intern sucks, Matt. You know this. Put the poor kid's name on the site at least.
Cunningham addresses something which he calls "objectivity" - actually the modus operandi of the media would be more accurately described as "stenography". They usually feel obliged to repeat everything which they are told by government sources with no judgement as to truth. Objectivity does not preclude judgement.
Maybe the solution would be to have official government media outlets for their propaganda, so that the private media could focus on trying to find the truth.
The CJR piece was interesting, but I wish he'd written about the Clinton Administration and the Arkansas Project.
In a nutshell, Bill Clinton was widely exalted among liberal African Americans as "America's first Black President." For the same reasons, he was equally despised by segregationists, white supremacists and Klansmen.
One would be hard pressed, from reporting of the serial Clinton pseudo scandals, to know that the reporters' source was a group of Clinton's old political enemies from Arkansas, bought and paid for by Richard Mellon Scaife.
Thus, in the name of "objectivity," reporters achieved the opposite result. They were spoon fed 8 years of B.S. by the well funded sons-in-law of bitter, old Arkansas rednecks.
I also regard this episode as the tipping point where journalists, like Yellowstone grizzlies who forget how to forage once exposed to an open dumpster, became fat and complacent.
Comments closed August 24, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Your objectively pro-intern bias is outrageous! You obviously want the interns to win, you treasonous surrender monkey! Why do you hate America?
Posted by DMonteith | August 10, 2007 9:09 AM