Objectivity and Subjectivity

Newspaper journalism was not always objectively based. Jack McElroy, the head editor of the Knoxville News Sentinel, recounts that early American newspapers were originally political publications. Modern newspapers began in Venice in the 16^th century, when printed news sheets known as “avisi,” which means “to call or inform,” were circulated throughout the city. The avisi featured news on public scandals, the military, the ruling class, and the city, and were often very opinionated based on the printer. 

The first newspaper in America, written by Benjamin Harris, was printed on September 25, 1690, and featured stories on attacking Native Americans and tended to be more sensationalist than newsworthy. Newspapers such as the New England Courant were politically centered, with the Courant leading a political fight against smallpox. The Courant was run by James Franklin, who ended up in jail because of his political aspirations; the publishing rights of the paper then passed over to his younger sibling, Benjamin. Benjamin Franklin also assumed the responsibility for publishing the Pennsylvania Gazette, and turned the publishing of newspapers into one of many successful endeavors in his life (Collier’s).

Adolph Ochs, from Tennessee, took over the paper known as the New York Times in 1896 and made it the standard for objective news reporting (Collier’s). While the Times is still considered to be a paper with high objective standards, subjectivity is beginning to find a place in news reporting. Whereas traditional journalism only allowed for opinion in the Editorial section, the online era of journalism features not only increased amounts of editorials, but the very subjective world of blogging. 

McElroy argues that subjective writing is sometimes considered by readers to be more credible than objective writing. Michael Kinsley of Slate Magazine agrees, saying that while objectivity is an ideal, it is utterly inhuman to be totally without opinion on a matter. This observation explains why readers may find subjective writing more believable, because readers identify with the writer as another human. Since not all readers will agree with the viewpoint of a writer, it is hard for editors to judge what will help or hurt their publication’s credibility.

Humans tend to find credible what they agree with, and can base their opinion of an article on whether or not they agree with the writer. An example would be a blog written by Knoxville local blogger Katie Allison Granju, entitled “The real reason a lot of women can't stand Sarah Palin.” In this blog, Granju outlines her opinions on Palin's election to the vice presidential candidacy. She does not respect Palin because she feels Palin takes her candidacy for granted and does not respect the generations of women before her who struggled for the right to be in politics. 

Many of her correspondents agree with her, but her dissenters tear apart the entry, often directing offensive commentary at Granju herself. The downside of this entry is that it offended some of its readers, who may not consider Granju a good or credible blogger due to her opinions. Granju has a credible background, however, as a published writer, journalist, and blogger, but the average reader may not take that into account. 

The upside is that the entry spawned a huge public discussion, involving the readers in the blog, and turning a subjective piece into a debate. While Granju might have offended fewer people if she had stated both sides of the argument, the effect on public involvement is a boon to her blog, bringing in more readers, whether or not they agree with her. 

In the same fashion, subjective journalism may improve its reader base by featuring writers who have definite opinions. However, issues arise when readers are offended by the opinion expressed in a piece. No matter how opinionated he or she may be, the writer still holds the identity of gatekeeper, even in a blog.

Three Models of Reporting

Mickey Kaus of Slate online magazine discussed three models of reporting in a blog about John McCain. He writes in this entry that he sees a progression of newspaper and blogger roles in reporting, and believes that newspapers, blogs, and editorials all have a separate, yet equal part in the media. The models of reporting can be visualized as shown in the following process flows.

The rumors of Edwards' affair started circulating in the National Enquirer (http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/64271) and in many reader blogs in mid-2007. While the Enquirer continued to investigate the affair, large news corporation did not report on it at all. Eventually, after Edwards revealed in August 2008 that he had been having an affair, the large media printed the story. 

The question was whether or not the large media should have reported on the rumor, even though it was unverified. Many papers received criticism from readers because of their lack of coverage, and were accused of trying to cover up the Democratic candidate's personal life. Paul Mulshine of NJ.com's NJ Voices made a very astute comment on the fact that the media was basically ignoring a hot story.

In response to allegations of covering up dirt on political candidates, the major media fairly jumped on rumors that Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin's fifth child was actually that of her daughter’s, such as http://www.236.com/news/2008/08/30/were_going_with_the_rumor_sara_1_8598.php from the site www.236.com. While that rumor was debunked, the large media corporations did find out that Bristol Palin was pregnant, making national news. In this case, large media's pursuit of a rumor netted a verified story.

Media watchdog sites keep track of their own agendas, usually politically centered. Some sites, such as Accuracy In Media (www.aim.org ), Media Matters for America (www.mediamatters.org), and the Media Research Center (www.mediaresearch.org) are very biased towards liberal (Media Matters) and conservative (AIM and Media Research) viewpoints. These organizations are driven to police the media for unfair bias against their chosen political stances, but they also watch for incorrect information. These sites are very vocal, and while some of their stories could be classified as sensationalist political propaganda, a news organization could use the watchdog sites as meters for how thoroughly they are covering an issue, as well as check facts that may seem dubious to the more extreme ends of political parties.

The issue of publishing unverified information has garnered criticism of papers in multiple ways. McElroy cites John Edwards’ affair as an instance in which the media was accused of covering up information to keep it from the public. McElroy says that the papers did not immediately cover the story because the information was not verified. When Edwards himself came out and verified the claims, then the papers reported on it, but not before great criticism from the public. More than just a question of bias or subjectivity, the decision to post or pursue unverified rumors can hurt a paper’s credibility whether the rumors are posted or not.

Frank “Buzz” Trexler, the managing editor for Maryville, Tennessee newspaper The Daily Times, says that standards for news reporting should still be upheld, even though the role of gatekeeper has changed for traditional newspapers.

The word “journalism” once referred to a profession. Today, it has a different connotation, primarily due to the Internet’s emergence as the Gutenburg press of the late 20th century. Today, anyone can publish, so the “keeper” is a role that no longer exists. The problem is this: There are many “publishers” who do not understand the “rules” of publishing in terms of legalities, ethics, common sense, and responsibility. (Trexler)

Trexler says that even though the rules for reporting have changed, stories should still be covered with correct attention to standards and ethics. With subjective reporting, although the writing may be opinionated, the order of operations for reporting a credible story remain the same.

The issue with printing rumors may link back to the new gatekeeping roles. Because the general public, through blogs and comments, now has a voice in what news appears on the public radar, the mainstream media is somewhat at the whim of the readers. If a story such as the Edwards scandal is hot in the blogs, it may behoove the large news corporations to look into verifying or debunking the rumor. The issue facing the mainstream journalists, however, is the risk of becoming so hung up on rumor-hunting that the role of general informer is lost. 

While opinion writing and stories with a biased slant may create pageviews and public discussion for a site, basic hard news reporting should, in my opinion, not be ditched for public interest pieces. The fact remains that the vast majority of readers do not have the means to investigate and cover large stories, nor to distribute them to many people through the larger open media channels. News corporations and the mainstream media still have a role in news reporting in the Internet age, even if the role of information gatekeeper has been changed.

Kaus says the press likes to be the center of attention. The mainstream media wants to be able to showcase the biggest stories and have the attention of its readers. If the biggest story out there is a rumor, then the MSM is more likely to report on it because of the risks run in not reporting it. By not reporting the Edwards rumor, the MSM was accused of being pro-liberal and attempting to suppress facts (Kaus). Chicago Ray, a politically conservative blogger out of Buffalo Grove, Illinois, writes,

All the MSM biggies tried to act reflective upon themselves regarding the burying of the Edwards story for 8 months, acting and pontificating as if this was some terrible heart wrenching decision to make for this reason or that reason, when common sense which they and most liberals lack told all that they buried it [to] spare Edwards the turmoil and didn't want to blow the Dem chances of the White House in the fall [sic]. That is why they did it and nothing more complicated is needed to be contemplated, pure partisanship was to blame and they know it. (Chicago Ray)

Jane Kim, of the Columbia Journalism Review, says that the Edwards affair raised questions of priority in the MSM. She questions the media's obligation to the public as a verification tool for rumors, asking, “Members of the media have these discussions each time someone in the political spotlight commits an indiscretion. Does covering that indiscretion qualify as intrusion or as legitimate muckraking? Is the unsatisfactory answer that it’s both?" (Kim). The Edwards story became more of an issue than just the MSM not covering it. It became a turning point for the media's role in providing information. 

The larger question becomes, should the media report parts of political figures' personal lives, even if the rumors are unvalidated? If the story becomes a large one in the blogosphere and among the public, is it the MSM's duty to cover it? The media has a larger access to information then the general public, so if the general public is reporting something as major as a running candidate's infidelity, should the MSM look into it?

Some sites, such as Snopes.com and Fact.com, make their mark by proving or debunking rumors. These sites play a role in the public's general knowledge; should these sites also contribute information for news stories? If large newspapers are taking cues from small rumor sites and blogs, should they also involve organizations that exist for the purpose of rumor milling? If large media does begin using rumor sites to back up information, they will have almost lost the ability to stand alone as a separate information provider. By investigating stories using available staff and direct sources, the mainstream media can play as another source of verification, rather than a repeater of facts and reasons that readers already know from other sites.

If the media decides to cover a rumor, it runs the risk of being labeled a muckraker, and may come up with the fact that a rumor is totally unfounded. On the other hand, by not covering a rumor, the MSM may be subject to losing a popular story if the rumor comes true, or uncovers another story as with Bristol Palin's pregnancy. The media feeds on what the general public wants news about, as evidenced by the large amount of entertainment and celebrity news. 

If the general public wants to hear information on political candidates and figures, it would be in the MSM's best interest to cover and investigate possible stories. Much of this issue stems from a difference in the public desire for information on a certain subject, and the MSM's disinterest in the same subject, which is rumors about presidential candidates.

One commenter, known as “Okakura” on Wesley J. Smith's blog “MSM assault on Sarah Palin continues” notes that “In an age of Internet news, rumors disguised as news travel at the speed of light and are cut & pasted into every forum and chatroom in a matter of hours. And the more salacious the rumor, the quicker it travels. This doesn't mean that they were in every case perpetuated by the MSM, which appears to be an omnipresent whipping boy for ANY unfavorable coverage of a conservative candidate or issue" (Smith, comment). In the blog itself, Smith calls a foul on the MSM for excessive coverage of the Sarah Palin rumors, and has the opinion that the press is showing partisanship in its choice of coverage.

The blurred line here is whether large news corporations had a “knee-jerk” reaction to the criticism garnered by its lack of coverage for the Edwards story. "Okakura" defends the MSM, pointing out that the origin of the rumors is often the general public, and the MSM is often behind in reporting about them. "Okakura" also says that the length of time the Palin rumors have been in the mainstream has been far shorter than others, such as the Edwards revelation and the rumor of Barack Obama's being a Muslim. Without specific examples, these two Internet entities are somewhat short of proof, but they illustrate the debate among the politically minded about the mainstream media's stance. 

The issue is more than just a liberal-conservative bipartisanship on the side of the MSM, but is a reformation of the media's role in what little gatekeeping powers it has left. The observation remains that despite its supposed undermining by bloggers and the Internet, which has left its gatekeeper responsibilities little more than a post in the middle of the river of information, the MSM is still a heavy-hitter in the information sector due to its amount of coverage and ability to investigate further than the average person.

Back to top

Blogging Subjective Content

Bloggers add a new dimension to the objectivity versus subjectivity debate. Because most blogs are written in order to express an opinion, bloggers may have to do extra work in order to prove the veracity of any facts cited within their blogs. McElroy says that while many newspapers have been accused of hiding information and taking biased views, they are often considered more credible than bloggers, who have no editor and are often pushing their own agenda. However, McElroy also says that bloggers and subjective writers can be seen as more credible than traditional news writers because they actually have an opinion. This may appear to be more human and close to reader sentiment than a totally objective, unbiased news report, and therefore more believable.

Paul McLeary of the Columbia Journalism Review also points out the dangers of being totally objective. “If reporters start serving as the arbiters of factual disputes, charges of bias—already prevalent and shrill—would surely escalate" (McLeary). By printing all sides of an argument, McLeary says that it is both frustrating and often detrimental to print things that are obviously wrong. For example, if Sarah Palin hypothetically says in an Alaskan press conference that she can see Russia from her house, and a reporter knows that this is not true, should the reporter put a note stating that the information is false? On the other hand, printing totally subjective content and op-ed material could garner criticism for the MSM due to the obvious bias of human nature.

Michael Kinsley of Slate Magazine believes that objectivity is a dead idea. “Nobody believes in objectivity, if that means neutrality on any question about which two people somewhere on the planet might disagree" (Kinsley). He points out that “all observations are subjective,” and that opinion journalism can be seen as more credible because it does not have to hide any opinion. He says that it is easier to believe an opinion journalist or blogger because that writer does not have to follow a web of logic from each opposing point. While true objectivity may be dead, surely it still has a place in journalism. Journalism would just be one big op-ed page if objectivity were totally discarded.

McLeary suggests a system where the blogosphere and the MSM work together to create a whole picture of news. Because bloggers are often seen as “real” people, as their often un-edited writings come straight from the source, it is easier for the public to be more appreciative of opinions from blogs. A journalist working for a large news corporation could be seen as an agenda-driven writer due to the editing process that they must undergo, thus making their writing less “human” to the public. McLeary suggests that the MSM provides straight hard news as well as investigative pieces on subjects that the public wants to know more about, but may not have the resources and contacts that the MSM has. Then, says McLeary, the opinion writing and analyzing would come from the bloggers, straight from a very human opinion.

Newspapers have already started this practice. The Knoxville News Sentinel has its own Blogs and Opinion section on its web site, featuring bloggers such as Michael Silence and his blog No Silence Here, and Kesi Garcia and Rick Starr, two community bloggers from the Knoxville area. By presenting varied opinion and more “human” takes on a story, via bloggers, the MSM may be able to improve its credibility with its readers and the general public.

Back to top

Update Speed, Quality, and Credibility

The straight content of a news story is not always the ultimate factor in deciding credibility. McElroy cites a few specific instances when the Knoxville News Sentinel’s approach to updating a story or speed of doing so has affected the paper’s credibility with its readers. Whenever there is a breaking story, the Sentinel will always issue a short blurb on their front page with some information about the situation. The online producers then continue to update that story when the writers have more information to provide. 

When the Central High School shooting happened, the Sentinel supplied the public with their customary short piece, and then spent two or three hours getting facts, verifying information, and putting together a story. McElroy said the paper received criticism from its readers for its approach because of the a break in updates on the site. The original story read “A shooting has been reported at Central High School. More details as they develop online and in Friday's News Sentinel" (knoxnews.com). Some of the earlier comments on the story reflect readers’ dismay at such a short initial story.

“WHY publish this??? Is the purpose to worry parents and cause a chaos? Why not just wait until there are some deatails [sic]?" (knoxnews.com) posts “allimsayin.” "Allimsayin’s" concern is with the extremely short blurb that first appeared, citing lack of details as a source of worry.

“Yes it is good to post the news, but to leave it so completely vague and incomplete is just stupid. It takes cops less than 5 minutes to respond - you could add some more information to your article in less than 5 minutes as well" (knoxnews.com) posts “etacovda” in response to "allimsayin." "Etacovda’s" viewpoint is that the News Sentinel should be quicker in its coverage of the story, on par with emergency services.

Others disagreed with the disgruntled posters, however, and were just happy to have any information at all. As well as discussion about the shooting itself, a discussion about promptness and detailed reporting broke out in the comments.

“Do you think parents would be happier if they waited until they heard it on the news tonight? I would like to believe they want to be informed immediately especially since the wounded(s) names will not be released for some time. I'd be mad as hell if I was left out of the loop" (knoxnews.com) posts “alfrednewman.” "Allimsayin" retorted with “It took 20 minutes to gather enough information on this story to responsibly publish it. Do you think maybe some parents have been freking [sic] out in the meantime. Look I have kids, I'm not suggesting they wait until tonight to tell you, ALL I am saying is that without additional information its [sic] kind of irresponsible to post a story because it has the ability to cause WIDE SPREAD PANIC" (knoxnews.com). "Allimsayin" appears to take the point of view that the News Sentinel should not have posted the story at all until all of the facts were straight and present. The forum-goers disagreeing with this viewpoint appreciate the speed of update, and are happy with any information they can get, even if it is sparse.

Knoxnews.com’s online producers also got into the discussion, defending the site’s reasons for posting such a short blurb to begin with, and the site was backed by those who appreciated the paper’s attention to correct, although, slow, updates.

Posted by lspuhler on August 21, 2008 at 9:11 a.m.

All -

We are reporting information as we can confirm its accuracy. We're trying to get information to the people who need it - that's why we posted only a sentence in the first version online. If you followed closely, you'd know we updated that version within 3 minutes with more details.

I'll start deleting comments that get off-topic and hurtful.

Lauren Spuhler

knoxnews.com (knoxnews.com)

A forum-goer known as “mnx” reports an issue with reporting details too soon.

I was listening to one of the more popular radio stations report on this story a few minutes ago. First they were telling listeners that officials were telling parents to stay at Central Baptist, then they were telling parents to go to the school to get their kids, and then they were telling them to stay at the church. It is perhaps best not to provide the information if the information is not accurate. If my daughter were a student there I would have been freaking out. (knoxnews.com)

"Mnx" goes on to make a general statement about newspapers being generally accurate, but slow to report, intimating that he/she is happy with the speed and frequency of the News Sentinel’s updates due to the inherent nature of newspapers.

McElroy says that other sites, such as WBIR.com, adopted a continuous-blogging approach during the shooting aftermath, in which all information, verified or not, was posted on the site when it was received. The story was updated as the day went on, and the list of information was confirmed or disproved later. WBIR (also known as 10News) was not afraid to post that they didn’t know information, while the News Sentinel did not have uncertainty in their story.

8:45 a.m. A caller to 10News, identified as a student named Taylor, said he was in the school when the shooting occurred. Just a minute afterward, Taylor said an announcement came over the PA, telling everyone to get to the nearest room and lock the doors. Taylor said he and several others remain locked in the choir room at this time.

Confirmation: The Knoxville Fire Department is confirming a shooting at Central High School on Jacksboro Pike in Knoxville. It happened just after 8 a.m. There is no word at this point of injuries. At least one person has been taken into custody. It is unknown at this point whether that person is considered a suspect or is merely being interviewed. (WBIR.com)

It is difficult to judge the public’s reaction to a story, and there is a very fine line of public-perceived credibility between sites that update continuously, but with unverified or unknown information, and papers that spends more time getting the facts, but less time posting on the site.

Back to top