Editing Journalistic objectivity (section)

== Criticisms ==
[[File:Megan Willams -Objectivity does not exist (not even for journalists).webm|thumb|left|Megan Willams (journalist), "...Objectivity does not exist (especially for journalists)..."; interviewed in [[Varanasi]] in December 2010 by Vrinda Dar]]

Some scholars and journalists criticize the understanding of objectivity as neutrality or nonpartisanship, arguing that it does a disservice to the public because it fails to attempt to find truth.<ref name=":1">{{Cite book|title=Journalism Studies: A Critical Introduction |last1=Calcutt |first1=Andrew |last2=Hammond |first2=Phillip |publisher=Routledge |year=2011 |isbn=978-0-203-83174-8 |location=US and Canada|pages=97–114}}</ref> They also argue that such objectivity is nearly impossible to apply in practice—newspapers inevitably take a point of view in deciding what stories to cover, which to feature on the front page, and what sources they quote.<ref name=":1" /> The media critics [[Edward S. Herman]] and [[Noam Chomsky]] have advanced a [[propaganda model]] hypothesis proposing that such a notion of objectivity results in heavily favoring government viewpoints and large corporations.<ref name=":1" /> Mainstream commentators accept that [[news value]] drives selection of stories, but there is some debate as to whether catering to an audience's level of interest in a story makes the selection process non-objective.<ref name=":1" />

Another example of an objection to objectivity, according to communication scholar [[David Mindich]], was the coverage that the major papers (most notably the ''[[New York Times]]'') gave to the [[lynching]] of thousands of African Americans during the 1890s.<ref name=":4" /> News stories of the period described the hanging, immolation and mutilation of people by mobs with detachment and, through the regimen of objectivity, news writers often attempted to construct a "[[false balance]]" of these accounts by recounting the alleged transgressions of the victims that provoked the lynch mobs to fury.<ref name=":4">{{Cite book|title=African American Journalists: Autobiography as Memoir and Manifesto |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=otBOx5p25b0C&pg=PA8 |last=Hall|first=Calvin|publisher=Scarecrow Press|year=2009|isbn=978-0-8108-6931-8|location=US|pages=8}}</ref> Mindich suggests that by enabling practices of objectivity and allowing them to "[go] basically unquestioned",<ref name=":4" /> it may have had the effect of normalizing the practice of lynching.<ref>''Just the Facts: How "Objectivity" Came to Define American Journalism'', 1998</ref>

In a more recent example, scholars Andrew Calcutt and Phillip Hammond (2011) note that since the 1990s, war reporting (especially) has increasingly come to criticize and reject the practice of objectivity.<ref name=":1" /> In 1998, a [[BBC News|BBC]] reporter, [[Martin Bell]], noted that he favoured a "journalism of attachment", over the previously sought after dispassionate approach.<ref name=":1" /><ref>Bell, Martin (1998) 'The Journalism of Attachment', in Matthew Kieran (ed.), Media Ethics, London and New York, NY: Routledge.</ref> Similarly, a [[CNN]] [[war correspondent]] from the US, [[Christiane Amanpour]], stated that in some circumstances "neutrality can mean you are an accomplice to all sorts of evil".<ref>{{cite journal |id={{Gale|A18690657}} |last1=Ricchiardi |first1=Sherry |title=Over the line? |journal=American Journalism Review |date=1 September 1996 |volume=18 |issue=7 |pages=24–31 }}</ref><ref name=":1" /> Each of these opinions stems from scholar's and journalist's critique of objectivity as too "heartless" or "forensic" to report the human natured and emotionally charged issues found in war and conflict reporting.<ref name=":1" />

As discussed above, with the growth of mass media, especially from the 19th century, news advertising became the most important source of media revenue. Whole audiences needed to be engaged across communities and regions to maximize advertising revenue. This led to "[j]ournalistic [o]bjectivity as an industry standard […] a set of conventions allowing the news to be presented as all things to all people".<ref name=":3">Lynch, J. and McGoldrick, A. (2005). ''Peace Journalism''. Gloucestershire: Hawthorn Press, p. 203</ref> In modern journalism, especially with the emergence of 24-hour news cycles, speed is of the essence in responding to breaking stories. It is therefore not possible for reporters to decide "from first principles" how they will report each and every story that presents itself—thus, some scholars argue that mere convention (versus a true devotion to truth-seeking) has come to govern much of journalism.<ref name=":3" />

{{Quote|Reporters are biased toward conflict because it is more interesting than stories without conflict; we are biased toward sticking with the pack because it is safe; we are biased toward event-driven coverage because it is easier; we are biased toward existing narratives because they are safe and easy. Mostly, though, we are biased in favor of getting the story, regardless of whose ox is being gored.|Brent Cunningham, 2003<ref name="cjr.org">{{cite journal |last=Cunningham|first=Brent|year=2003|issue=July/August |title=Re-thinking Objectivity |journal=[[Columbia Journalism Review]] |publisher=[[Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism]] |url=https://www.cjr.org/feature/rethinking_objectivity.php?page=all|access-date=20 December 2012}}</ref>}}

Brent Cunningham, the managing editor of ''[[Columbia Journalism Review]]'',<ref name="BrentCunningham">{{cite web |url-status=dead |url=http://www.journalism.columbia.edu/profile/160-brent-cunningham/164 |title=Brent Cunningham |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120201173946/http://www.journalism.columbia.edu/profile/160-brent-cunningham/164 |archive-date=2012-02-01 |website=Columbia Journalism School |access-date=20 December 2012}}</ref> argues in a 2003 article that objectivity excuses lazy reporting. He suggests that objectivity makes us passive recipients of news, rather than aggressive analyzers and critics of it.<ref name="cjr.org" /> According to Cunningham, the nut of the tortured relationship with objectivity lies within a number of conflicting diktats that the press was subjected to operate under: be neutral yet investigative; be disengaged yet have an impact; and be fair-minded yet have an edge.<ref name="cjr.org" /> Cunningham, however, argues that reporters by and large are not ideological warriors; rather, they are imperfect people performing a difficult job that is crucial to society and, "[d]espite all our important and necessary attempts to minimize [individual's] humanity, it can't be any other way", Cunningham concludes.<ref name="cjr.org" />

The debate about objectivity has also occurred within the photojournalism field. In 2011, Italian photographer [[Ruben Salvadori]] challenged the expectation of objective truth that the general public associates to photojournalism with his project "Photojournalism Behind the Scenes".<ref>{{cite news|title=Hinter den Kulissen des Fotojournalismus|url=http://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2012-03/fs-ruben-salvadori-2|newspaper=Die Zeit}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=CBC / Radio Canada – Les Lionnes|url=http://vimeo.com/36256731}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Dietro le Quinte|url=http://www.internazionale.it/portfolio/dietro-le-quinte/|newspaper=Internazionale}}</ref> By including the traditionally invisible photographer into the frame, Salvadori sought to ignite a discussion about the ethics of the profession, and indicate a need for audiences to be  active viewers who understand and recognize the potential subjectivity of the photographic medium.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.nocaptionneeded.com/2012/02/ruben-salvadoris-photojournalism-behind-the-scenes/|title=Ruben Salvadori's Photojournalism Behind the Scenes|date=2012-02-24|work=NO CAPTION NEEDED|access-date=2017-04-19|language=en-US}}</ref>

Another notion circulating around the critique of objectivity is proposed by scholar [[Judith Lichtenberg]]. She points to the logical inconsistency that arises when scholars or journalists criticize journalism for failing to be objective, while simultaneously proposing that ''there is no such thing'' as objectivity.<ref name=":1" /> Underpinning critiques of objectivity that arose in the 1970s and 1980s, this dual theory—which Lichtenberg refers to as a "compound assault on objectivity"<ref name=":5">Lichtenberg, Judith (1991) 'In Defense of Objectivity', in James Curran and Michael Gurevitch (eds.), Mass Media and Society, London: Arnold.</ref>—invalidates itself, as each element of the argument repudiates the other.<ref name=":1" /> Lichtenberg agrees with other scholars that view objectivity as mere conventional practice: she states that "much of what goes under the name of objectivity reflects shallow understanding of it".<ref name=":1" /><ref name=":5" /> Thus, she suggests that these practices, rather than the overall notion of objectivity (whose primary aim, according to Lichtenberg, is only to seek and pursue truth), should really be the target of critique.<ref name=":1" /><ref name=":5" />

Journalism scholars and media critics have used the term '''{{Visible anchor|View from nowhere|text=view from nowhere}}'''<!--boldface per [[WP:R#PLA]]--> to criticize journalists' attempt to adopt a neutral and objective point of view in reporting, as if reporting "from nobody's point of view". [[Jay Rosen]] has argued that journalists may thereby [[disinform]] their audience by creating the impression that they have an authoritative impartiality between conflicting positions on an issue.<ref name="Maras">{{cite book |last=Maras |first=Steven |date=2013 |chapter=The view from nowhere |title=Objectivity in journalism |series=Key concepts in journalism |location=Cambridge, UK; Malden, MA |publisher=[[Polity Press]] |pages=77–81 |isbn=9780745647357 |oclc=823679115}}</ref><ref name="Rosen">{{cite web |last=Rosen |first=Jay |author-link=Jay Rosen |date=10 November 2010 |title=The view from nowhere: questions and answers |url=http://pressthink.org/2010/11/the-view-from-nowhere-questions-and-answers |website=pressthink.org |access-date=2017-10-10}}</ref> Jeremy Iggers quoted [[Richard S. Salant]], former president of [[CBS News]], who stated: "Our reporters do not cover stories from their point of view. They are presenting them from nobody's point of view."<ref name="Iggers">{{cite book |last=Iggers |first=Jeremy |date=1998 |chapter=The view from nowhere and 'objective interpretation' |title=Good news, bad news: journalism ethics and the public interest |series=Critical studies in communication and in the cultural industries |location=Boulder, Colo. |publisher=[[Westview Press]] |pages=[https://archive.org/details/goodnewsbadnewsj0000igge/page/96 96–103] |isbn=0813329515 |oclc=38010683 |chapter-url=https://archive.org/details/goodnewsbadnewsj0000igge/page/96 |chapter-url-access=registration}}</ref> Iggers called Salant's assertion "plainly incoherent, as is the notion of observations untouched by interpretation".<ref name="Iggers"/> Rosen has used the term to criticize journalists who hide behind the appearance of journalistic objectivity so as to gain an unearned position of authority or trust with their audience; he advocates for [[Transparency (behavior)|transparency]] as a better way of legitimately earning trust.<ref name="Maras"/><ref name="Rosen"/> Scholars such as Rosen and [[Jake Lynch]] borrowed the term from philosopher [[Thomas Nagel]]'s 1986 book ''[[The View from Nowhere]]'', which stated, "A view or form of thought is more objective than another if it relies less on the specifics of the individual's makeup and position in the world."<ref name="Maras"/> Many other news media commentators have also criticized the view from nowhere in journalism.<ref>For example:
* {{cite web |title=Articles tagged 'view from nowhere' |url=http://www.niemanlab.org/tag/view-from-nowhere/ |website=niemanlab.org |publisher=[[Nieman Foundation for Journalism]] |access-date=2017-10-10}}
* {{cite news |last=Brendan |first=James |date=9 June 2016 |title=Death to the 'view from nowhere': how Donald Trump broke the media's brain |url=http://www.ibtimes.com/death-view-nowhere-how-donald-trump-broke-medias-brain-2379767 |work=[[International Business Times]] |access-date=2017-10-10}}
* {{cite book |last1=Callison |first1=Candis |author-link1=Candis Callison |last2=Young |first2=Mary Lynn |date=2020 |chapter=Reckoning with the 'view from nowhere' |title=Reckoning: journalism's limits and possibilities |series=Journalism and political communication unbound |location=Oxford; New York |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] |pages=24–50 |isbn=9780190067083 |oclc=1112281480 |doi=10.1093/oso/9780190067076.003.0002}}
* {{cite web |last=Friedersdorf |first=Conor |author-link=Conor Friedersdorf |date=30 October 2011 |title=Stop forcing journalists to conceal their views from the public: the case against the view from nowhere |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/10/stop-forcing-journalists-to-conceal-their-views-from-the-public/247571/ |website=theatlantic.com |publisher=[[The Atlantic]] |access-date=2017-10-10}}
* {{cite book |last=Ward |first=Stephen J. A. |date=2015 |orig-year=2004 |title=The invention of journalism ethics: the path to objectivity and beyond |edition=2nd |series=McGill-Queen's studies in the history of ideas |volume=38 |location=Montréal |publisher=[[McGill-Queen's University Press]] |page=282 |isbn=9780773546301 |oclc=908308806 |quote=To the contrary, disinterestedness is not radical detachment, leading to a 'view from nowhere.' Instead, it is an extension of our common and important ability to step back and reflect on the grounds of our beliefs, apart from our partialities and interests.}}
* {{cite web |date=2 April 2021 |title=Why the view from nowhere is a harmful myth |type=radio show |url=https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/segments/view-nowhere-on-the-media |access-date=28 September 2021 |work=[[On the Media]] |location=New York |publisher=[[WNYC Studios]]}}
</ref> Writer Elias Isquith argues in a 2014 article for ''[[Salon (website)|Salon]]'' that "the view from nowhere not only leads to sloppy thinking but actually leaves the reader ''less'' informed than she would be had she simply read an unapologetically ideological source or even, in some cases, nothing at all".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.salon.com/2014/04/12/objectively_bad_ezra_klein_nate_silver_jonathan_chait_and_return_of_the_view_from_nowhere/|title=Objectively bad: Ezra Klein, Nate Silver, Jonathan Chait and return of the 'view from nowhere'|last=Isquith|first=Elias|date=12 April 2014|work=[[Salon (website)|Salon]]|access-date=2017-10-10}}</ref> In 2019, journalist Lewis Raven Wallace published a book advocating the opposite of the view from nowhere: the ''view from somewhere''.<ref>{{cite book |last=Wallace |first=Lewis Raven |date=2019 |title=The view from somewhere: undoing the myth of journalistic objectivity |location=Chicago |publisher=[[University of Chicago Press]] |isbn=9780226589176 |oclc=1089848628 |doi=10.7208/9780226667430|doi-broken-date=1 November 2024 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Rollman |first=Rhea |date=18 October 2019 |title='The view from somewhere' exposes the dangerous myth of 'objective' reporting |website=[[PopMatters]] |url=https://www.popmatters.com/lewis-raven-wallace-view-somewhere-2640867119.html |access-date=2021-10-06}}</ref>