Via the NRO’s Media Blog, Jeff Jarvis:
I found myself in a discussion about blogs and newspapers recently — I feel as if I never leave that discussion — one of them asked the inevitable question about reporters blogging: Should they have opinions? I said I’d give them my blogboy answer: Of course.
One of the editors gave the example of an ongoing smoking ban story. Should the reporter express an opinion for or against in her blog? It took me a minute before I came up with the right answer: It’s not so much about an opinion on that story as it is about transparency. So, like a good New Yorker, I answered the question with a question: If the reporter were a smoker, wouldn’t that be relevant? Doesn’t the audience deserve to know that? If the audience caught the reporter grabbing a smoke, wouldn’t they properly see it as a scandal? If the reporter doesn’t reveal that, isn’t that a lie of omission, a hidden agenda? So if the reporter has an attitude about that smoking ban, might that be relevant, too?
As longtime readers of this blog might expect — I disagree. Does this reporter have to also reveal whether she goes to bars and carouses? And both smokers and nonsmokers have attitudes about the smoking ban — why should only smokers be the ones to disclose that fact?
What if the reporter was writing about adultery, or homosexuality?
Look: of course I have opinions, and so do all of my colleagues. And I’m sure you’d like to know what some of them are. Hell, as a news consumer, I’m curious to know what certain reporters’ political views are. But I don’t really think they’re the public’s business.
Does anyone remember Thomas Penfield Jackson, the U.S. district judge who had his ruling breaking Microsoft into pieces overturned in part because of his public statements?
“We vacate the judgment on remedies, because the trial judge … made numerous offensive comments about Microsoft officials in public statements outside of the courtroom, giving rise to an appearance of partiality,” the U.S. court of Appeals ruled. “Although we find no evidence of actual bias, we hold that the actions of the trial judge seriously tainted the proceedings before the District Court and called into question the integrity of the judicial process.”
In an age where reporters and reporting are under constant attack, why would we want to give our critics more ammunition?
It is actually possible to report on controversial subjects like abortion, Israel/Palestine and the Iraq war fairly and objectively. I’ve seen it done. But the instant a reporter revealed her feelings on the matter, I think she’d be under a barrage of attacks from the demon press critics.
And for political campaigns — should the reporters covering the presidential candidates have to reveal their party affiliations? (Most political reporters actually aren’t registered with a party, just so no one can look it up). You can imagine a situation evolving where Democratic candidates would only trust and speak to the Democratic reporters, and Republican pols did the same — actually, that’s already happening to some small degree.
Sometimes when I catch flack on reporting from people I agree with, I’m tempted to say so — “Oh, but I agree with you on (abortion/Israel/Iraq/what have you).” But I never do. I think it would be unprofessional. And ultimately reporters’ private feelings shouldn’t be relevent to the stories they produce. We should be able to put our feelings aside and write an objective story.
Yes, it is possible to report objectively, even on subjects where you have passionate beliefs. I’ve seen it done as well. So well, in fact, (and let me see if I can do this as vaguely as possible) that an anti-issue group requested that a reporter I worked with at one point not cover their event. They believed this reporter was far too pro-issue, when in reality, the reporter was more “anti” than they were. That seemed to me to be a high compliment.
Ryan — deadparrots.net
I think you’ve fallen for the myth of the impartial journalist. If a journalist is a homosexual and writes about homosexuality, I want to know that. It affects how I understand what the journalist writes. If a journalist is anti-abortion and writes about abortion, I want to know that. It affects how I judge what is written and how critically I examine the journalist’s “facts”.
If a journalist who smokes writes about a smoking ban, I don’t think I need to know that she smokes. But if she is pro or anti the ban, I do need to know that, because it may color her judgment.
In the example Ryan gives, if I knew the reporter was strongly anti, yet the story was pro, then I think that gives the journalist more credibility. If you can write a favorable story about something you personally oppose, then you are obviously attempting to be as objective as possible. On the other hand, if your article is anti and so are you, how difficult is that to write? And how serious will you be about nailing the facts down?
It’s human nature to be biased. It’s dishonest not to admit it. And it’s a disservice to the reading public to write about subjects you have a personal interest or stake in without admitting that up front. No matter how objective your article might be.
Well, obviously, if you have like an financial interest in a story, or are writing about people you’re friends with, that needs to be disclosed — or, better yet, the story handed off to someone else.
But ultimately, all journalists are members of society — of course we have stakes in whether taxes go up or down, whether smoking is banned in bars, or whether we go to war. That’s just common sense. And is there anyone who doesn’t have opinions about issues like abortion and capital punishment?
It is human nature to be biased. But it’s not really that hard to set aside your feelings and be objective. For example, very few people would claim that objectivity is impossible for judges, scientists, sporting referees, etc. — why should it be that hard for journalists?
What you say about scrutinizing a journalists’ work more closely if you knew their political views just proves my point, IMHO.
Also: I think it’s a bit creepy, what you say about a reporter having to disclose if he/she is gay or not. I mean, don’t we deserve any privacy? The standard you’re articulating … we trust politicians to vote on gay-rights issues without knowing their sexuality. And we trust judges to rule objectively on the constitutionality of these issues without knowing their sexuality. I agree, journalists should be held to a high standard … but higher than judges and politicans? Who has the more important job?
Well the bottomline on all this, I think, is appearance. Journalists are theoretically professionals and should be able to write about a subject journalistically without their opinions coming through. Those who can’t are not professionals. Those who don’t admit they’re letting their bent get into how they report and write are not professionals. That is why places like Fox, and the Post, and the WashTimes and other papers that pretend to be like the rest of the world are so bad. MSM is generally fair and balanced. Fair and Balanced, if you’re liberal means you’re rightest. If you’re conservative, fair and balanced strikes you as liberal. You can’t win. That is why, I think, that when a “journalist” lets their opinions be known on a certain subject, they are essentially shattering the illusion of professionalism. Our opinions on ANYTHING, unless we are columnists, should not matter. The blogosphere has increasingly made them matter … which in my opinion is bad for the craft.