On objectivity

Last week in class, I had to give a presentation on this blog.

At the end was some time for questions and answers, and somebody asked me if I consider my political reporting in this blog - since that's what the presentation was on - to be objective.

My reply was that unlike most political blogs, I do consider my political commentary (at least the stuff I've done for class thus far) to be unbiased, mainly because it deals with issues that go beyond the boundaries of partisan politics.

However, on further reflection, I find it extremely difficult to honestly consider this blog objective.

A better term might be 'bipartisan' (or, in the Canadian context, 'tripartisan'). While I might not be ripping into the Liberals or Conservatives for whatever manufactured scandal is all the rage this week, my "everybody can agree on this" solutions pretty much stop at the three major parties. Leaders being far too powerful in the Canadian system, for example, is not an opinion with which anyone advocating a dictatorship would agree. When I suggest that a strong, united Canada is a good thing, I'm sure the Bloc Quebecois would think otherwise. And so on.

It might not be impossible for a journalist to be truly objective and unbiased, but it's definitely difficult. One example a professor has used a few times - and this is the one that finally got me clued in to what he was talking about - is the example of "profits are good, and more profits are better". If we see a business story about Company X making $10 million for its shareholders, and right beside it Company Y making $15 million for its investors, we'll think Company Y is the healthier (or stronger or better) company. In reality, maybe Company X had an operating profit of $20 million, but decided to reinvest it into the company, while Company Y passed on all of its profits. A company making a profit is really only good for people with a stake in that company - there are other things they could do with that money, many would argue, that would be preferable.

Today in class, we discussed Wikinews - it tries to present all news from a 'neutral point of view', so what does that mean for objectivity? According to Wikinews itself, even this website - with its legions of writers and editors cross-examining anything that might contain the slightest bit of bias - cannot be fully objective. One of its most prominent failings is that it reflects the culture it comes from - just because news might seem objective to an Anglo-American audience, doesn't mean it will to somebody reading it in China or Somalia, and if these two people disagree, it obviously cannot truly be objective.

(Of course, it is only the English-language Wikinews that has an Anglo-American slant; I would assume that each Wikinews is slightly and unintentionally biased towards the worldview of those who speak that language.)

There is a bigger question, though, and that question is as follows: Does it even matter if journalists are not unbiased? Or at the very least, if their biases are the same as those of the society in which they live/work?

My opinion, ill-informed as it may be, leans to the negative. Historically, journalists have been described off and on as "mirrors of society" - a description which I think fits quite nicely. Journalists are not historians, and should not be counted on to explain exactly what is happening - especially considering that during the most historically important moments (I'm thinking 9/11 here), journalists, much like the rest of us, don't know exactly what is happening.

The better function for journalists, in my opinion, is to reflect their society. This serves two purposes. For one, it provides an easy method for outsiders to learn the ins and outs of a culture they are unfamiliar with it. For two, it's more likely to resonate with the culture in question - people tend to read what they agree with, and even if we were to somehow find a true globally objective viewpoint to every story, entire cultures would disagree with this view, and the end result would be akin to a communist watching FOX News.

It's sort of like Esperanto, the poorly-conceived and short-lived attempt at a global language - the problem wasn't that people don't like learning new languages, it was that different regions and cultures are so distinct that it is impossible to treat them in the same way and expect a favourable reaction.

Are journalists objective? Not even close. Can they be? It's difficult, but it's possible. Should they be? I don't think so.

--Ryan