Objectivity in Journalism

"Objective" is defined by the New Oxford American Dictionary as "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts." In terms of journalism, this means having the ability to present a story by relaying only the facts without spinning them to promote an agenda. While it is important to try to maintain a standard of honesty and to present the truth as clearly as possible, the fact is that it is nearly impossible to completely strip away all of one's biases. We're not robots. I don't believe that people ought to expect journalists to be emotionless, to have no thoughts or opinions. What they can expect is for those opinions to not alter the truth. 

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/readme/2006/03/the_twilight_of_objectivity.html

The above article expresses the idea that objectivity is not a value, because the impossibility of the concept forces journalists to hide the real meaning of a story in an attempt to appear unbiased. Michael Kinsley argues that opinion journalists can actually be more honest because they can look at the big picture and aren't trying to hide anything. I agree. In today's information-rich world, the facts are out there. What we need from our journalists is an interpretation of the facts, and sometimes that requires that journalists express opinions and take a stand. I also don't believe that we should require journalists to be emotionless. I gain respect for reporters and writers when they humanize an issue.

My Motivation

While thinking about the topic of my motivation for pursuing a career in journalism (or a writing career in general. I haven't quite decided on my future occupation, but I know I want to write) I came across this article, which broke down the journalism profession into four categories. Of the four, I think I am either a storyteller or a provocateur. I don't want to be a writer so that I can stop all the corruption of the world. I'm sure it's a worthy goal, and somebody needs to do it, but I don't think that person is me. I like feature stories. I like talking about the world. For me, hard-hitting or investigative stories aren't the only stories worth telling. I wouldn't mind being a narrative writer, or putting a new spin on an old concept. I like to think about things in a creative way, and share my way of seeing things with the world.

My ideal job would be writing novels, but I recognize that this is not a completely practical goal. I am majoring in journalism because I think it will help me break into the writing/editing world. If I do fall in love with journalism over the course of my college career, I would have no problem with trying to write stories for a newspaper or magazine. The only problem with journalism, for me, would be keeping my own opinions in check, which is why I wouldn't enjoy being breaking news reporter.A features writer, one that would allow me to tell a creative story or introduce new ways of thinking, would be better for me, even if I couldn't share my opinions in that format either.

I would rather write features than hard news.

How to make journalism interesting but not sensational

I'm currently taking the class Media Writing 211, and so I've gained a pretty good idea of how to write a short and boring news article. The little pieces we wrote in class, in the inverted pyramid style, were just a learning tool to introduce us to the world of journalistic writing. They were extremely factual, but painfully uninteresting. Unfortunately, I have read newspaper articles, by professional journalists, that are similarly difficult to read.

I think the key to making an article or piece of reporting interesting is to make it a story. Make the reader want to know more. Appeal to their emotions. Journalism tells the story of human existence. Journalists have to make the reader connect with the subject of the story, through the use of literary techniques and skillful writing.

It's also very important for journalists to report things actually care about. Some stories are less newsworthy than others. This article from Monday's New York Times stuck out to me in particular, both for the horrific nature of the story and its treatment by the journalist. The problem of young men dying from being crushed by corn in silos is an issue I never would have dreamed could exist. Such a tragic experience must be treated with respect, but the journalist also had to make it emotional enough so that people living in a big city would sympathize with the plight of farm workers. The opening paragraph, showing the reaction of a mother who has just been told that her son was killed, was a brilliant way to introduce the story. He also gave very vivid descriptions of the deaths of several young men, and emphasized how the deaths were all preventable, which augmented the tragedy.

As to how to not make a story sensational, I think that sticking to the truth and not using the techniques of yellow journalism or the National Enquirer magazine would be a good start.

The story should be the interesting part, not the headline. If a journalist has to resort to offering secrets or shocking truths to draw a reader in, they should get out of the business. Sensationalism isn't just disgraceful, it's annoying for the consumer. If you're promising an amazing, mind-blowing story, actually deliver one!