Editing Journalistic objectivity (section)

== Alternatives ==
Some argue that a more appropriate standard should be [[Fairness Doctrine|fairness]] and [[accuracy]] (as enshrined in the names of groups like [[Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting]]). Under this standard, taking sides on an issue would be permitted as long as the side taken was accurate and the other side was given a fair chance to respond.  Many professionals believe that true objectivity in journalism is not possible and reporters must seek balance in their stories (giving all sides their respective points of view), which fosters fairness.

{{rquote|right|A good reporter who is well-steeped in his subject matter and who isn't out to prove his cleverness, but rather is sweating out a detailed understanding of a topic worth exploring, will probably develop intelligent opinions that will inform and perhaps be expressed in his journalism.|[[Timothy Noah]], 1999<ref>{{cite web |last=Noah |first=Timothy |author-link=Timothy Noah |date=January 1999 |url=http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/1999/9901.symposium.noah.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304040258/http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/1999/9901.symposium.noah.html |title=Two imperatives in contemporary journalism |website=[[Washington Monthly]] |archive-date=2016-03-04}}</ref>}}

Brent Cunningham suggests that reporters should understand their inevitable biases, so they can explore what the accepted narratives may be, and then work against these as much as possible.<ref name="cjr.org" /> He points out that "[w]e need deep reporting and real understanding, but we also need reporters to acknowledge all that they don't know, and not try to mask that shortcoming behind a gloss of attitude, or drown it in a roar of oversimplified assertions".<ref name="cjr.org"/>

Cunningham suggests the following to solve the apparent controversies of objectivity:<ref name="cjr.org" />  
* Journalists should acknowledge, humbly and publicly, that what they do is far more subjective and far less detached than the aura of "objectivity" implies. He proposes that this will not end the charges of bias, but rather allow journalists to defend what they do from a more realistic and less hypocritical position.
* Journalists should be free and encouraged to develop expertise and to use it to sort through competing claims, identifying and explaining the underlying assumptions of those claims, and making judgments about what readers and viewers need to know and understand about what is happening. 
In the words of another scholar, Faina (2012) suggests that modern journalists may function as "sensemakers" within the shifting contemporary journalistic environment.<ref name=":6">{{cite journal |last1=Faina |first1=Joseph |title=Public journalism is a joke: The case for Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert |journal=Journalism |date=May 2013 |volume=14 |issue=4 |pages=541–555 |doi=10.1177/1464884912448899 |s2cid=146592279 }}</ref>

Notable departures from objective news work also include the [[muckraking]] of [[Ida Tarbell]] and [[Lincoln Steffens]],<ref>Harrison, J. M., and Stein, H. H. (1973). ''Muckraking: Past, present and future''. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.</ref><ref>{{Cite book|title=Muckrakers: How Ida Tarbell, Upton Sinclair, and Lincoln Steffens Helped Expose Scandal, Inspire Reform, and Invent Investigative Journalism|last=Bausum|first=Ann|publisher=National Geographic Society|year=2007|isbn=978-1-4263-0137-7|url-access=registration|url=https://archive.org/details/muckrakershowida0000baus}}</ref> the [[New Journalism]] of [[Tom Wolfe]],<ref>{{Cite book|title=The New Journalism|last=Wolfe|first=Tom|publisher=Harper|year=1973}}</ref> the [[underground press]] of the 1960s, and [[Citizen journalism|public journalism]].<ref name=":6" /><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Min |first1=Seong-Jae |title=Conversation through journalism: Searching for organizing principles of public and citizen journalism |journal=Journalism |date=July 2016 |volume=17 |issue=5 |pages=567–582 |doi=10.1177/1464884915571298 |s2cid=146953446 }}</ref>

For news related to conflict, [[peace journalism]] may provide an alternative by introducing insights of social science into the journalism field, specifically through disciplines such as [[conflict analysis]], [[conflict resolution]], [[peace research]] and [[social psychology]].  The application of this empirical research to the reporting of conflict may thus replace the unacknowledged conventions (see above) which govern the non-scientific practices of 'objectivity' of journalism.