The simplest definition of objectivity would probably go something like this: Telling both sides of the story without preference or bias. But as we’ve discussed in class, objectivity isn’t as simple as it may seem. Are there always just two sides to a story? How many sides are there, and who defines them? Are all the sides accessible to the reporter? And wouldn’t good reporting give the reader some idea of which sides are more probably true, based on facts, statistics, etc.?
There’s nothing wrong with striving for objectivity, but there needs to be acceptance that it will never fully be reached. And it doesn’t help anyone to so strictly follow the rules of objectivity without critically thinking about its implications on story telling. Blogs are an interesting example of objectivity versus subjectivity: They are a forum where a writer can tell a story as they see it to be most probably true. But this doesn’t necessarily mean journalistic standards are followed. So how are we to reconcile a forum where readers can garner a lot of information, but where information doesn’t follow the standards of objectivity?
1. The source of the information and a complete biography must be included. The writer can have a point of view - we all do - but they need to be clear about where they come from.
2. There needs to be an adherence to relatively indisputable facts. We always work in probabilities of truth - which means there’s always room for questioning - but generally a journalist needs to hold tested, well-founded facts above all else.
I don’t see anything wrong with subjective reporting contextually grounded in facts, when the writer is as transparent as possible. But I think that works best as part of a media landscape that includes some organizations that do strive for objectivity. Why pick one or the other, when a combination of the two seems to serve the most people best?