PRAGMATIC OBJECTIVITY: Objectivity With a Human Face

by Stephen Ward

The Joan Shorenstein Center

■ PRESS POLITICS Discussion Paper D-37 May 1999

■■PUBLIC POLICY Harvard University John F. Kennedy School of Government Copyright© 1999, President and Fellows of Harvard College All rights reserved

The Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy John F. Kennedy School of Government Harvard University 79 John F. Kennedy Street Cambridge, MA 02138 Telephone (617) 495-8269 • Fax: (617) 495-8696 Web Site Address: http://ksgwww.harvard.edu/~presspol/home.htm INTRODUCTION

A philosopher who thinks about journal- Ward believes the virtue of this reformula- ism? A who thinks about philosophy? tion of news “objectivity” is that it explicitly If either or both strike you as a conundrum, you recognizes the inherent qualities of judgment are not alone. that reporters must employ, and entails an In today’s world of “all-Monica-all-the- understanding of the inherent fallibility of such time”—with its accompanying boundary collapse judgments, while holding them to community or between entertainment and news—what could collective standards that usefully promote the philosophy and possibly say usefully central goals of reporting itself. to each other? These goals can vary widely in individual The answer is, it turns out, as Stephen Ward’s instances, depending on the reporter’s subject: a fascinating paper explains, a great deal. However short piece recounting a traffic accident or bur- wobbly or fractiously, journalism is governed still glary has much less demanding requirements by professional canons, none more powerful than than analysis of political or economic trends or that of “objectivity.” The canon has suffered policies. What they share in common is the repeated assault, though, not merely through viola- reporter’s, editor’s, and audience’s grasp of the tions by practitioners, but through a concerted contingent quality of the reporting in all cases, attack by modern (and post-modern) media critics, and openness to its revision. who believe that “objectivity” is (depending on the Ward, in my opinion, is offering a useful critic) deceitful, erroneous, misleading, incoherent, restatement of a central tenet of journalism that downright irrational—or all of the above. has clearly grown more controversial over the Into this thicket, Ward has shone the light years. For that, we are in his debt. There remain, of modern analytic philosophy—based in part on however, elements of his description of “prag- the career as a philosopher he pursued before matic objectivity” that are unresolved and sure turning to journalism (and most recently, to to draw criticism. teaching journalism). Like other critics, Ward is Ward uses the idea of “best available stan- troubled by traditional formulations of the con- dards” without detailed reference to two of the cept of “objectivity” as applied to journalism. most powerful (and disputed) domains in mod- But unlike so many others, he seeks to redeem ern social science: “power” and “interests.” Both the concept by revising and recasting it. concepts, after years of investigation and debate, Ward believes that journalism needs stan- lack widely-agreed definitions. This is problem- dards, including the standard of objectivity, in atic to social scientists (as well as philosophers order to function successfully. What he proposes of social science), but no less for and in place of its rejection is revision—specifically, a their public audience. new formulation that he calls “pragmatic objec- How well in fact does modern journalism— tivity.” faced not with auto accidents, but complex ”Pragmatic objectivity,” Ward explains, political and economic issues—go about incorpo- drawing on the work of Harvard philosopher rating the role of “power” and “interests” into W. V. Quine, “begins with the premise that its standards and practices? everything we know is an interpretation of some Consider the recent “Asian economic cri- aspect of our world”—or what Quine calls the sis.” Early reporting berated the failures of “man-made fabric” of theories only partially “crony capitalism” and lax standards and con- hemmed in by facts. trols over local capital markets as aspects of an A report is “pragmatically objective,” in “Asian development model” that only months Ward’s account, if it meets the test of three avail- before had been touted as a paradigm for how able standards: empirical standards that test a the underdeveloped world should advance. West- report’s accord with facts derived by careful ern economics writers now suddenly find them- observation, controlled experiments, or statistical selves exploring the advantages of capital measure; standards of coherence that tell us how controls as a means to prevent future failures, consistent an interpretation is with what else we when months earlier any mention of such prac- believe; and standards of rational debate that tices was anathema to economists and economic include a commitment to rational persuasion and journalists alike. Were Ward’s criteria of “prag- tolerance, and openness to rival views and matic objectivity” lacking before the crisis, after counter-evidence. the crisis, or is some other component missing

Stephen Ward 1 in Ward’s model that explains the immense shift betrayed by the sheer volume and unifocal in the explanatory and prescriptive paradigms? monotony of the coverage, even though Ward’s Or consider how many press accounts have “pragmatic objectivity” standards have been in fact handled the “Asian financial crisis” by met in thousands of individual stories? retranslating its public and policy dimensions Ward has taken an important step in pre- into stock-picking opportunities for the invest- senting his own description of a viable interpre- ment-minded individual—even as a quarter or tation of news “objectivity.” Hopefully those more of Indonesian school children leave self-same standards can expand subsequent con- school, their parents unable to afford their mini- versation about what more is needed to help mal fees. Here again, do Ward’s rules help jour- modern journalism—and the public it serves— nalists select which story frame to use, or how through the thicket of problems facing us at the to weight their relative usages? If so, against end of the twentieth century. what standards? Closer to home, although there have been Richard Parker noteworthy exceptions, has the immense press Senior Fellow coverage of Monica Lewinsky essentially failed Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, to meet Ward’s three standards—of empirical Politics and Public Policy factuality, coherence, and openness to rational John F. Kennedy School of Government debate? Or does the audience feel exhausted or Harvard University

2 Pragmatic News Objectivity Pragmatic News Objectivity: Objectivity With a Human Face by Stephen Ward

Introduction culture is skeptical about anything as seemingly outdated as the belief in truth and objectivity. Within our own total evolving doctrine, we can judge Not surprisingly, this skepticism has seeped truth as earnestly and absolutely as can be; subject to into journalism. Media critics claim that news correction, but that goes without saying. objectivity is impossible because reporters are political actors, not neutral observers.2 Objectiv- —W. V. Quine, Word and Object ity, critics say, is too much to expect because journalists are under intense commercial pres- This paper provides the philosophical sure to sell the news and please their bosses. framework for pragmatic news objectivity, a Even if objectivity were possible, these critics new theory of objectivity for journalism at a argue that it is undesirable because it encour- time when its ethics and standards are in tur- ages reporting routines that carry their own moil. For most of the 20th century, news objec- biases, such as reinforcing the status quo.3 tivity has been a dominant ethic, requiring Other critics argue that journalists’ biases dis- reporters to be accurate and fair, and to deliver tort not only how they select their stories, but the news with as little bias as possible. Tradi- also how they select the facts and sources for tionally, this has entailed the avoidance of all stories. Further, biases are said to affect how evaluation and judgment, the use of only facts reports are edited, how headlines are written and perfectly neutral chronicles of events. This and even how photographs are chosen. Many of traditional formulation of news objectivity is no these criticisms are unhelpful to working jour- longer adequate. A new theory is needed, one nalists because the critics fail to provide alter- that retains the ideal of news objectivity while natives to news objectivity. Rejection of responding to the needs of today’s journalism. traditional objectivity without a viable alterna- The traditional notion of objectivity is tive ideal would open the door to undisciplined, flawed because it is based on the mistaken irresponsible journalism. belief that objectivity requires absolute stan- This paper defines objectivity in a philo- dards and knowledge that is independent of per- sophical sense and then applies the concept to spective. In practice, traditional objectivity now journalism. It concludes by replying to three lacks the ethical force to guide journalists fundamental questions. Unlike traditional because criticisms of objectivity have cast a pall objectivity, pragmatic objectivity does not of doubt over the ideal. Moreover, the relevancy require detachment from all values and perspec- of news objectivity is questioned as tives—an impossible demand on humans. move toward a more interpretive journalism. Instead, it tests the essential activities of inter- Doubts about news objectivity arise from preting, evaluating and adopting a perspective. doubts about objectivity per se. Can our beliefs Pragmatic news objectivity allows for human be objective? Since at least the middle of the failings; it wears a human face.4 20th century, there has been a “simmering dis- satisfaction”1 in academia with the idea of Pragmatic Objectivity: objectivity because of the view that all knowl- The Philosophical Basis edge, even science, is theory-laden and not Both the proponents and opponents of value-free. Outside academia, our post-modern objectivity get objectivity wrong. Both define objective knowledge as belief based firmly on Stephen Ward was a Fellow at the Shorenstein Center neutral facts or absolute standards of logic and in the spring of 1998. Formerly a reporter, foreign reason. Objective knowledge is knowledge of correspondent and bureau chief for The Canadian reality that is independent of anyone’s perspec- Press , he is now an Associate Professor at tive. The skeptic has little difficulty casting the Sing Tao School of Journalism. He can be reached doubt on such strong claims and therefore objec- at the University of British Columbia, 6388 Crescent tivity is too easily refuted and the real issues are Road, Vancouver, B.C. Canada V6T 1Z2. His e-mail missed. The notion of pragmatic objectivity address is [email protected] strips away these incorrect assumptions.

Stephen Ward 3 Pragmatic objectivity begins with the judge some claims as better than others, given premise that everything we know is an interpre- some standards. Fifth, the correctness of our tation of some aspect of our world. All beliefs, basic standards is determined pragmatically by descriptions, theories and points of view contain their overall usefulness to achieving whatever some element of conceptualization, theorizing theoretical or practical goals we have, from and evaluation. Even our perceptions of objects understanding the genetic code and predicting do not provide direct contact with reality, but earthquakes to communicating information. are the result of much filtering of stimuli by our Objective belief is not the product of a neutral concepts, beliefs and expectations. Everything spectator whose ideas mirror external objects; it we know in science, the professions or journal- is the product of an active problem-solving agent ism is what W. V. Quine, the Harvard philoso- whose beliefs and standards are means to certain pher, calls a “man-made fabric” of theories only goals. partially hemmed in by facts.5 Any interpreta- Pragmatic objectivity skirts the two great tion is part of a web of mutually supportive bogeymen of objectivity—the extreme relativist facts, values and theories. What we accept as and the extreme skeptic. The relativist says that fact depends upon our theories and values; like- none of our beliefs are objective because their wise, the theories and values we accept depend truth is relative to our society. The skeptic says upon facts. none of our beliefs are objective because their An interpretation is objective if it is well truth is not certain. For centuries, defenders of justified according to the best available stan- objective belief have answered the relativist and dards. There are three types of standards: empir- the skeptic by trying to prove that certain ical standards that test a belief’s agreement knowledge exists. The pragmatic attitude is to with the facts, such as standards for careful acknowledge cheerfully that humans cannot observation, controlled experiments, statistical reach certain knowledge, but can muddle along measurement and prediction; standards of perfectly well with plausible beliefs and stan- coherence that evaluate how consistent an dards. All that pragmatic objectivity requires is a interpretation is with the rest of what we skepticism about particular claims and stan- believe, such as standards of valid reasoning; dards. We think from within a historical era and and standards of rational debate that include a a culture, but we can avoid a narrow viewpoint commitment to rational persuasion and toler- by keeping our standards of objectivity open to ance, to fair consideration of rival views and reform. We can do no better. counter-evidence. In many cases, these stan- dards will conflict and imprecise tradeoffs Objectivity in Journalism between standards will be required. For exam- How does this notion of pragmatic objec- ple, how many contrary facts are needed before tivity apply to journalism? News objectivity is a you change a coherent theory? A judgment of species of pragmatic objectivity. All forms of objectivity is a judgment about the overall rea- journalism, including news reports, are interpre- sonableness of a belief, theory or news report. tations of events with at least some degree of The belief is reasonable insofar as it balances conceptualization, selection, theorizing and these standards. evaluation. There are no value-free or theory- Pragmatic objectivity has five main fea- free reports. Some degree of interpretation and tures. First, objectivity is the rational justifica- evaluation haunts even our basic attempts to tion of our beliefs, not the search for some report an event. For example, a report saying absolute Truth. Second, objectivity is a complex that the Prime Minister of Canada was “stung” judgment that weighs various standards; it is not by accusations of wrongdoing and “struggled” to a simple feature of a news report. Third, the reply is an interpretation. Descriptions of an judgment of objectivity is fallible, a matter of armed standoff between Natives and police as degree, and comparative. The judgment says that being an “illegal act” by the Natives or a “legiti- interpretation X is more objective than interpre- mate affirmation of Native rights” are also tation Y, given certain standards. Fourth, the interpretations. best available standards are determined by the The degree of interpretation is what distin- overall conceptual scheme (or perspective) of a guishes news reports from commentary. Instead discipline, profession or tradition of inquiry. of dividing journalism into objective news However, we are not locked into these perspec- reports and subjective opinion, it is better to see tives, which are open to challenge and change. journalism as a continuum. At one end of the There are no absolute standards, but we can still continuum are stories that stay close to the

4 Pragmatic News Objectivity facts, such as reports about car accidents, fires standards. To evaluate a report, or series of and petty crime. In the middle are stories that reports, as objective is to weigh and balance contain context, judgments, interpretations and these many standards—standards determined by assessments of the significance of events, such the craft of journalism and the public it serves. as reports about protests, government decisions Evaluation of the objectivity of a piece of jour- and social issues. At the other end of the contin- nalism is fallible and difficult. One difficulty is uum are stories about highly complex topics that the standards themselves must be inter- such as civil wars, foreign lands and political preted. For example, is the relevance of a story intrigue. In such cases hard facts are in limited to be decided by journalists, by experts, or by supply, interpretation is king and the objectivity what the public finds interesting? Must a bal- of a story may be debatable. Moving across the anced report include all possible views or only continuum, we encounter stories with increas- the credible ones? Who decides which ones are ing distance from known facts, increasing credible? Decisions about relevancy and balance amounts of interpretation, and decreasing test the journalist’s ability to make weighted degrees of objectivity. judgments in a problematic context, under pres- An objective news report is an objective sure of deadlines. There are no easy formulas to interpretation; the report is objective to the help one decide, no absolute principles. Yet rea- extent that it satisfies the best available stan- sonable, non-arbitrary judgments must be made dards. What are the standards of objectivity for about specific norms such as fairness and the journalism? They are the same general stan- overall objectivity of a story. dards that apply to philosophical objectivity, as In summary, traditional news objectivity is previously discussed: empirical standards, stan- based on a positivism that accepts only factual dards of coherence and standards of rational statements as objective. Traditional news objec- debate. Moreover, journalism has developed its tivity disallows interpretation, value and theory own norms of news objectivity. These norms in reports. Pragmatic news objectivity allows come in two types: norms of factuality and such perspectives, provided they meet the tests norms of impartiality. Norms of factuality of agreed-upon standards. require reports to be truthful and relevant. Adoption of this pragmatic view of news Truthfulness is the use of accurate facts, quota- objectivity has several advantages. One advan- tions and paraphrases; it seeks official documen- tage is that it shifts the debate away from irre- tation and reliable sources. Relevance means solvable, abstract disputes about the theoretical that reports are substantially complete, contain possibility of objectivity to more manageable, the most important facts and address the most concrete questions about the degree of objectiv- important issues. The norms of impartiality ity of a specific report, relative to other reports. require balanced and fair reports about disputes The question is not whether a reporter makes and controversy. In addition, journalists have an interpretation or if the reporter’s claim corre- translated these norms into a wide range of sponds with reality, but rather, to what degree detailed rules of practice, such as requiring two the story is justified or plausible—relative to our independent sources on a breaking story. These tests of objectivity. Another advantage is that norms and rules test a report’s objectivity in the the idea of pragmatic news objectivity can be hurly-burly of a . applied to a wide range of journalism, from Sometimes, these standards and rules con- news reports to features. Proponents of prag- flict and quandaries abound. The duty to inform matic news objectivity can ask about the degree truthfully may conflict with the duty to respect of objectivity of an analysis or even an opinion a person’s privacy. For instance, informing a column. Traditional news objectivity can’t community that a convicted pedophile has make sense of the idea of an objective opinion taken up residence must be weighed against the column because it assumes that only factual duty to respect the pedophile’s rights and pri- statements are objective and objectivity is an vacy. When such conflicts arise, there will be all-or-nothing affair. A third advantage is that tradeoffs between norms. The privacy rights of the question about whether journalists should the pedophile may be sacrificed to public safety be objective becomes a pragmatic question if there is a high risk that he will re-offend and about the usefulness of objectivity to particular if he has moved next door to an elementary types of journalism in particular contexts. school. When journalists make these tradeoffs, Objectivity is not the only valuable tradition in the circumstances of the case will help to guide journalism, nor is it an ethic that must be fol- the search for a compromise between opposing lowed rigidly in all contexts. The restraint of

Stephen Ward 5 objectivity—of factuality and impartiality— trends, go far beyond the traditional model of should be felt most strongly in news reports the objective journalist as a passive recorder of because the goal of such activity is careful, accu- facts. Reporters must cognitively transcend the rate informing. However, a strict objectivity level of isolated facts to understand the event in may be less appropriate for investigative report- question. There are, literally, too many things to ing, public journalism or political satire. observe in the world. When reporters cover a These considerations should lower our complex event, they organize a blizzard of infor- expectations about what objective journalism mation by selecting the most important facts, can achieve. Too often, objectivity is defined by picking the relevant issues and choosing story some unrealistic standard. For example, Herbert angles. Then they organize these facts under J. Gans thinks objectivity is impossible because concepts, analogies, narratives and other ways of there is no “perfect and complete reproduction understanding. For example, good reporting on (or construction) of external reality.”6 But repro- government documents, which are brim-full ducing reality is too strong a requirement. Con- with facts, is impossible without hanging the versely, we should not identify objectivity with news story on some conceptual structure, such something too narrow. For example, Theodore L. as ideas about what to expect from the report Glasser ridicules objectivity as a lazy citing of and what facts are important. This selecting and obvious facts and quoting of officials.7 A more organizing is what people do in all their purpo- realistic view is that journalism gives us incom- sive activity. Selection of facts can be biased, plete, yet important, information. A report is but an unedited parade of facts can mislead if neither a copy of reality nor a mental (or social) their context is not provided. Not to employ construction. News is something in between: such conceptual structures is to allow spin doc- the depiction of an event from a perspective. tors to confuse you with their own selected Journalism brings together the mind and the facts. Objectivity, in such reporting, is about the world. A report is the product of worldly facts methods by which journalists assemble and and the interpretive skills of the reporter. interpret the data. Some critics argue that the approach events with frames of ref- Facts, Values and Neutrality erence (or perspectives) that bias how they inter- Three major questions are likely to arise pret the facts. The Western news media, for about pragmatic news objectivity. First, does example, may interpret Latin American revolu- pragmatic news objectivity undermine the role tionaries as dangerous, leftist rebels, rather than of facts in journalism? Second, by allowing per- as freedom fighters. It has been suggested, mis- spective and evaluation in stories, does the the- takenly, that the existence of frames means that ory open the door to subjectivity or bias? Third, news objectivity is impossible. The correct view how can an objective journalist be both neutral is that journalists can’t avoid using frames of and committed to standards and values? reference; however, the frames should be made Facts remain a vital, albeit limited, test of explicit so they can be evaluated—objectively. pragmatic news objectivity. For example, inves- The second question asks if subjectivity or tigative journalists seek hidden facts to expose bias will result from pragmatic news objectivity. corruption. However, in some cases, there may A news report is not subjective simply because be disagreement on the facts, or insufficient it makes an evaluation or assumes a value. The facts to establish a claim. Purported facts may restraint of pragmatic news objectivity derives be false, manipulated or twisted. Facts do not from its tests and standards, even though the carry their meanings on their sleeves—they need standards are not absolute and their application context. In opinion polls, for instance, the diffi- is fallible. The worry about bias arises from a culty of correctly understanding the results suspicion that all values and standards are shows that facts need to be interpreted against inherently subjective, both inside and outside other things we know. In science reporting, the journalism. But values are not merely subjective facts of a study on cancer rates must be com- preferences, and evaluations have better or pared with background levels of cancer. More- worse reasons. It is not enough to say simply over, yet-to-be-discovered facts may, in the that I prefer (or value) X over Y when it comes future, prove the original news report wrong. to justifying important public policy decisions, Just as facts underdetermine scientific theory, so or journalism practices. I need to argue that X is too do facts underdetermine our news reports.8 worthy of rational support by showing that my The cognitive skills required in journalism, value judgment satisfies the best available evi- from questioning assumptions to identifying dence and standards to some degree. Thoughtful

6 Pragmatic News Objectivity public policy positions on substantive issues, view of the neutral journalist is a stenographer such as global warming, or the treatment of of official comments, never questioning the heroin addicts, are not just arbitrary expressions sources. These images assume that neutrality of feeling. They are positions built up by mak- means that reporters have no values. But this ing rational links between facts, theories, goals can’t be right—objectivity and neutrality are and values. Similarly, thoughtful journalism themselves fundamental values. Journalists stories are not just expressions of feeling; they commit themselves to objectivity and neutrality also make rational links between facts, theories because these values produce a journalism that and values. Where there are fundamental differ- accurately informs citizens. Objectivity and ences over values and standards, it may be neutrality are means to intrinsic public goods, impossible to resolve disputes. But given some such as a democratic way of life. Outside jour- agreement on basic standards and values, the nalism, judges, peacekeepers and referees also journalist and the non-journalist can rationally use neutral procedures as means to their larger and objectively assess viewpoints as being more goals (and values) of justice, peace, and a fair or less reasonable. game. They make fair evaluations and draw con- Objective reporters make two types of eval- clusions. No one should suppose that the judge, uation. First, they evaluate the value judgments the referee or the journalist is completely neu- and interpretations of other people for accuracy tral and value-free—or should be. Neither judg- and credibility. Second, they evaluate their own ing nor reporting is subjective simply because it reports for accuracy and credibility. These evalu- is guided by values. ations are based on some conception of the basic What sort of neutrality is suited to prag- values of journalism practice, such as accuracy, matic news objectivity? It is an impartiality of fairness and balance. A reporter who adopts method, of how you deal with an issue. Neutral- pragmatic news objectivity will evaluate stories ity is not prejudging the issue. Objective, neutral according to the basic standards listed above. reporters should approach issues without allow- These values play a vital role in the construc- ing their passions, interests or preconceptions to tion of stories by guiding the evaluation of bias their reports. Objective reporters are not claims and alleged facts. Sources must be evalu- epistemological eunuchs whose reports can ated as credible or not credible. Some view- never come to a conclusion; where appropriate, points (and claims) must be deemed to be more reporters may make fair evaluations based on all reasonable than other viewpoints. The evalua- the evidence. Neutrality demands not the tion of an entire story, as accurate and credible, absence of judgment and feeling but their sub- will be a complex balancing of fact, theory and jection to objective, public scrutiny—as much value. For example, a story on the social impact testing for fact and logic as journalism allows. of a government decision will combine fact, Pragmatic objectivity regards the journalist value, social science and theoretical prediction. as a participant in society with a vested interest These entanglements of fact and value are ubiq- in the health of its institutions, including the uitous in journalism because of the web-like institution of journalism. The journalist’s com- nature of our beliefs. Evaluation is a difficult, mitment to the values of objectivity and neu- but unavoidable, task of objective interpretation trality are part of a public philosophy of in journalism. journalism dedicated to democratic ideals. The The third question challenges the neutral- journalist may be an observer, but is never a ity of pragmatic news objectivity. Does it violate completely disinterested observer. As Robert a defining feature of traditional news objectivity MacNeil puts it: —the idea of strict neutrality? Yes. Strict neu- trality is neither possible nor desirable. Neutral- We (journalists) are not social engineers but each ity is not an absolute norm that must be one of us has a stake in the health of this democ- observed in all contexts, in all stories. As a com- racy. Democracy and the social contract that ponent of pragmatic news objectivity, neutrality makes it work are held together by a delicate web comes in various forms and degrees. The type of trust, and all of us in journalism hold edges of and degree of neutrality depends on the story. the web. We are not just amused bystanders, The opposition to objectivity derives in watching the idiots screw up.”9 part from mistaken images of neutrality. The neutral journalist is seen as a detached chroni- Pragmatic news objectivity, therefore, is cler, taking no sides, drawing no conclusions, no compatible with public journalism’s aim to revi- matter how horrific an event may be. Another talize civic life.10 The journalist can still report

Stephen Ward 7 independently and objectively from within his such as investigative and advocacy reporting? broad commitment to a vibrant, democratic Some journalists reject detachment and write public sphere. A journalist can be committed to from an explicit, attached viewpoint. They democratic ideals without being biased, ideolog- believe news objectivity requires stultifying neu- ical or narrowly partisan. Pragmatic objectivity trality that closes its eyes to evil.12 does have an agenda, but it is the public’s Objective journalists are committed in the agenda: to facilitate rational and fair public pol- sense of having ethical commitments and being icy decisions for all citizens. It is better to state engaged in society. But objective journalists are these broad commitments up front than to not advocates of specific causes; objective avoid examining them because objective reporters are not willing to compromise their reporters supposedly don’t have commitments. standards, e.g., to distort the facts to achieve This engaged form of objectivity is a core ethic their ends. Second, objective journalism can and from which today’s journalism can draw “practi- should co-exist with other journalistic styles cal guidance and moral strength.”11 and traditions. It is a mistake to portray the dif- Journalism needs to experiment with dif- ference between pragmatic news objectivity and ferent notions of neutrality for different types of attached journalism as a stark choice between stories. For straight news reports, two forms of cool detachment and impassioned attachment. neutrality are desirable: one cautious, the other Both the objective reporter and the attached more liberal. Cautious neutrality means the reporter are committed to goals, although the reporter does not take sides, makes no explicit goals and the means may differ. The objective judgments and avoids contentious inferences. reporter values accurate informing through This careful approach is appropriate for news objectively tested reports. The attached reporter reports about sensitive legal cases and disputes emphasizes reform of society and uses argument involving contradictory evidence and damaging and persuasion to prompt action. I believe jour- allegations. Caution is called for in these cases nalism needs objectivity and attachment. This because the danger of getting the story wrong is means that analyses, investigative stories and great—the facts are unclear and the claims background features should accompany objec- advanced are extremely controversial. Caution tive news reports on major issues. Moreover, is appropriate where there is a real likelihood many stories can combine the techniques of that irresponsible or inaccurate reporting could objective and non-objective journalism, e.g., interfere with the operations of important insti- reports may combine the story-telling tech- tutions such as the courts, or inflict harm on niques of feature journalism with the hard facts individuals. of objective reporting. Journalism’s history A more liberal neutrality allows the jour- offers many examples of blending objective and nalist to make explicit evaluations and judg- non-objective reporting techniques, from the ments, so long as such interpretations are of the early 1900s to post- grounded in fact, logic and other objective tests. Watergate investigative reporters. Liberalized neutrality is appropriate for reports We need both the passion of attachment about social and political issues where the pub- and the restraint of objectivity to work together lic needs some context and assessment. It is to produce solid, engaging journalism. Objectiv- also appropriate for interpretive and analytical ity controls our penchant to speculate and pro- pieces. For example, the approach of a Canadian mote. Attachment—whether in the form of report on the Canada-United States dispute over thought-provoking analysis or the exposure of West Coast salmon catches could be neutral, in corruption—lifts journalism above a superficial the sense of avoiding prejudgment and not rush- coverage of events. The standards of objectivity ing to the defense of Canada. Yet, the report should play the largest role in shaping our daily could include a historical perspective, an envi- news in the major areas of education, politics, ronmental assessment of fishing practices and health, the economy, environment and foreign evaluation of a group’s political strategy. The affairs. But in such reports, there is room for report is objective to the degree that the evalua- valuable interpretation. A narrow, traditional tions and historical interpretations satisfy the standard of objectivity that allows only facts in standards mentioned previously. reports is useless to much of contemporary jour- Pragmatic objectivity’s stress on basic com- nalism. But a journalism of attachment that mitments raises one last fundamental question: stresses feelings, value judgments and interpre- What is the relationship between pragmatic news tations, without objectivity, is reckless. Journal- objectivity and so-called committed journalism, ism ethics needs to develop flexible objective

8 Pragmatic News Objectivity guidelines to test interpretations across a wide ness and balance. But these components them- range of stories. selves are just as controversial as “objectivity.” Pragmatic news objectivity embraces a plu- Also, the components of objectivity cannot indi- ralistic theory of journalism which claims that vidually provide an adequate journalism ethic the public sphere needs a variety of types of because each is only one feature of an objective journalism motivated by a variety of purposes— report. Objectivity is a comprehensive ideal that to inform, educate, challenge, critique, satirize can justify the more specific values of fairness, and reform. No form of journalism is inherently accuracy and accountability to the public. more valuable than other kinds.13 A new theory of objectivity is needed because journalism is moving away from a rigid, Conclusion traditional style of objective reporting that elim- Why should we bother to save objectivity if inates any judgment or hint of editorializing. it has so many problems? Traditional news More and more, reporters use a lively, opinion- objectivity tends to reduce reports to collections ated style, or adopt an interpretive stance of official facts; pragmatic news objectivity toward stories. In Canada, even the more tradi- requires a complex weighing of standards. Nev- tional newsrooms of The Globe and Mail and ertheless, reporting today needs the restraint of The Canadian Press practice an objectivity that objectivity, and this need will increase as we mixes facts with interpretation and context. move into the next century. We live in an age of Journalists increasingly see themselves as pro- 24-hour news channels, of , of viding meaning to the daily barrage of frag- nine-second sound bites and of celebrity journal- mented news items. But giving meaning to an ism. We wade through a deluge of information— event is not a simple, uncontroversial procedure. and misinformation—on the Internet. Fierce The meaning may be biased or ideological. Jour- competition in the news marketplace calls for nalists need a theory of objective interpretation speedy production of attention-grabbing stories. to guide their forays into interpretive journalism. Global economic and technological forces are Democracy continues to need objective pushing journalists to do careless or unobjective reporters who care about responsible communi- reporting. Objectivity resists such forces by test- cation. Objectivity restrains journalists who ing stories with demanding ethical standards. would sacrifice accuracy and fairness to advo- Uncertainty about objectivity can lead to cate causes. It restrains those who would use confusion in newsroom practice and the erosion journalism to injure enemies and to pursue their of standards. Reporters and editors need a clear own ends. To devalue objectivity is to leave the idea of what objectivity is and why it is valu- public sphere even more vulnerable to manipu- able. Many reporters—and new codes of ethics— lation than it is today. In a culture that lacks avoid use of the word “objectivity” and instead confidence in objectivity, demagogues prosper talk about some of its components, such as fair- and the quality of public debate suffers.

Stephen Ward 9 Endnotes 7. Theodore L. Glasser, “Objectivity and News Bias,” in Philosophical Issues in Journalism, ed. 1. Michael Schudson, Discovering the News: A Elliot D. Cohen (New York: Oxford University Press, Social History of American (New York: 1992), p. 176. Basic Books, 1978), p. 130. 8. W. V. Quine, “On the Reasons for the Indetermi- 2. Timothy E. Cook, Governing with the News: The nacy of Translation,” Journal of Philosophy 67 News Media as a Political Institution (Chicago: Uni- (March 1970). Quine claims that theories are empiri- versity of Chicago Press, 1998). cally “underdetermined” in his many books. 3. Gaye Tuchman, Making the News: A Study in 9. Robert MacNeil, “Regaining Dignity,” Media the Construction of Reality (New York: Free Press, Studies Journal 9. No. 3 (Summer 1995): 110–11. 1978). 10. Jay Rosen, Getting the Connections Right: Public 4. My theory of pragmatic news objectivity owes Journalism and the Troubles in the Press (New York: much to the work of the Harvard philosophers W. V. Twentieth Century Fund Press, 1996). Quine and Hilary Putnam, and to their pragmatist predecessors, William James and John Dewey. The title of this paper echoes that of Putnam’s book, Real- 11. Rosen, p. 29. ism with a Human Face (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1990). 12. Martin Bell, the former BBC war correspondent, has supported this view in his “The Truth is Our The Harvard International Journal of 5. W. V. Quine, “Two Dogmas of Empiricism,” in Currency,” in Press/Politics From a Logical Point of View (New York: Harper and , 3(1)(1998): 102–09. See my “Answer To Row, 1953), p. 42. Bell: Objectivity and Attachment in Journalism,” in The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 3(3)(1998): 121–25. 6. Herbert J. Gans, “Multiperspectival News,” in Philosophical Issues in Journalism, ed. Elliot D. Cohen (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), 13. My journalistic pluralism is based on the moral p. 190. pluralism of Isaiah Berlin, Charles Taylor and John Kekes. See Kekes’s The Morality of Pluralism (Prince- ton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993).

10 Pragmatic News Objectivity OTHER PUBLICATIONS FROM THE SHORENSTEIN CENTER

DISCUSSION PAPERS “Post-Communist Eastern Europe: The Difficult Birth “Whither the Bandwagon?” of a Free Press,” Bernard Margueritte. August, 1995. Charlotte Grimes. February, 1999. Discussion Paper Discussion Paper D-21. $3.25 D-36. $2.00 “The Nigerian Press Under the Military: Persecution, “The Enemy Within: The Effect of ‘Private Censor- Resilience and Political Crisis (1983–1993),” Adeyinka ship’ on Press Freedom and How to Confront It – Adeyemi. May, 1995. Discussion Paper D-20. $3.75 An Israeli Perspective,” Moshe Negbi. November, “Paint-By-Numbers Journalism: How Reader Surveys 1998. Discussion Paper D-35. $2.00 and Focus Groups Subvert a Democratic Press,” Ali- “The Rise of the ‘New News’: A Case Study of Two son Carper. April, 1995. Discussion Paper D-19. $2.75 Root Causes of the Modern Scandal Coverage,” “Hispanic Voices: Is the Press Listening?,” Jorge Marvin Kalb. October, 1998. Discussion Paper D-34. Quiroga. January, 1995. Discussion Paper D-18. $3.00 $2.00 “From Bhopal to Superfund: The News Media and the “The Rise and Fall of the Televised Political Con- Environment,” Sanjoy Hazarika. September, 1994. Dis- vention,” Zachary Karabell. October, 1998. Discus- cussion Paper D-17. $2.00 sion Paper D-33. $2.00 “TV Violence, Children and the Press: Eight Ratio- “Pressing Concerns: Hong Kong’s Media in an Era of nales Inhibiting Public Policy Debates,” Sissela Bok. Transition,” Stephen J. Hutcheon. September, 1998. April, 1994. Discussion Paper D-16. $3.00 Discussion Paper D-32. $2.00 “When Policy Fails: How the Buck Was Passed When “Prepared for War: Ready for Peace? Paramilitaries, Kuwait Was Invaded,” Bernard Roshco. December, Politics, and the Press in Northern Ireland,” Tim 1992. Discussion Paper D-15. $3.25 Cooke. July, 1998. Discussion Paper D-31. $2.00 “The American Pattern of : A “Ijambo: ‘Speaking Truth’ Amidst Genocide,” Model to Follow?,” Santiago Sanchez Gonzalez. Alexis Sinduhije. July, 1998. Discussion Paper D-30. August, 1992. Discussion Paper D-14. $2.25 $2.00 “The Nixon Memo,” Marvin Kalb. July, 1992. Discus- “The Spokesperson-In-the-Crossfire: A Decade of sion Paper D-13. $2.00 Israeli Defense Crises from an Official Spokesper- son’s Perspective,” Nachman Shai. July, 1998. Dis- “Notes for the Next Epidemic, Part One: Lessons from cussion Paper D-29. $2.00 News Coverage of AIDS,” Timothy Cook. October, 1991. Discussion Paper D-12. $2.25 “The Business of Getting ‘The Get’: Nailing an Exclusive Interview in Prime Time,” Connie “The Media in Europe After 1992: A Case Study of Chung. April, 1998. Discussion Paper D-28. $2.00 La Republica,” Sylvia Poggioli. September, 1991. Dis- cussion Paper D-11. $3.25 “Shoah in the News: Patterns and Meanings of News Coverage of the Holocaust,” James Carroll. “The Russian and Soviet Press: A Long Journey from October, 1997. Discussion Paper D-27. $2.00 Suppression to Freedom via Suppression and Glas- nost,” Alexander Merkushev. August, 1991. Discus- “Junk News: Can Public Broadcasters Buck the sion Paper D-10. $2.00 Tabloid Tendencies of Market-Driven Journalism? A Canadian Experience,” William John Fox. August, “Different Strokes: Public Broadcasting in America 1997. Discussion Paper D-26. $2.00 and Australia,” Glyn Davis. July, 1991. Discussion Paper D-9. $2.25 “Journalism and Economics: The Tangled Webs of Profession, Narrative, and Responsibility in a Mod- “Changing Lanes on the Inside Track: The Career ern Democracy” Richard Parker. May, 1997. Discus- Shuttle Between Journalism, Politics and Govern- sion Paper D-25. $2.00 ment,” James McEnteer. May, 1991. Discussion Paper D-8. $1.75 “Spreading the Word: The KGB’s Image-Building Under Gorbachev,” Jeff Trimble. February, 1997. “Expanding the Public’s Right to Know: Access to Set- Discussion Paper D-24. $3.00 tlement Records under the First Amendment,” John J. Watkins. December, 1990. Discussion Paper D-7. $1.75 “The Foreign News Flow in the Information Age,” Claude Moisy. November, 1996. “Lies in Ink, Truth in Blood,” Linda Jakobson. August, Discussion Paper D-23. $2.50 1990. Discussion Paper D-6. $2.00 “The Next War: Live?” Barrie Dunsmore. March, “Window to the West: How Television from the Fed- 1996. Discussion Paper D-22. $3.50 eral Republic Influenced Events in East Germany,” Dieter Buhl. July, 1990. Discussion Paper D-5. $1.50 “School for Scandal,” Sissela Bok. April, 1990. Dis- “Shadowboxing with Stereotypes: The Press, The Pub- cussion Paper D-4. $1.00 lic, and the Candidates Wives,” Karlyn Kohrs Camp- bell. Research Paper R-9. $2.25 “Reflections on Television’s Role in American Presi- dential Elections,” Lawrence K. Grossman. January, “The Role of the News Media in Unequal Political 1990. Discussion Paper D-3. $1.50 Conflicts: From the Intifada to the Gulf War and Back Again,” Gadi Wolfsfeld. June, 1993. Research Paper “The Politics of Character and the Character of Jour- R-8. $2.25 nalism,” Judith Lichtenberg. October, 1989. Discus- sion Paper D-2. $1.75 “Two Commanders-in-Chief: Free Expression’s Most Severe Test,” Betty Houchin Winfield. August, 1992. “Press, Polls and the 1988 Campaign: An Insider’s Cri- Research Paper R-7. $3.25 tique,” Dayton Duncan. August, 1989. Discussion Paper D-1. $2.50 “An Economic Theory of Learning from News,” Mar- ion Just, W. Russell Neuman, Ann Crigler. July, 1992. Research Paper R-6. $2.25 RESEARCH PAPERS “The Church, the Press, and Abortion: Catholic Lead- “The Perpetuation of Prejudice in Reporting on ership and Public Communication,” Michael A. Gays and Lesbians—Time and Newsweek: The First Russo. December, 1991. Research Paper R-5. $5.50 Fifty Years,” Lisa Bennett. September, 1998. Research Paper R-21. $2.00 “Through the Revolving Door: Blurring the Line Between the Press and Government,” Lewis W. Wolf- “Talking Politics on the Net,” Sara Bentivegna. son. June, 1991. Research Paper R-4. $2.50 August, 1998. Research Paper R-20. $2.00 “Parsing the Pentagon Papers,” Frederick Schauer. “Communication Patterns in Presidential Primaries May, 1991. Research Paper R-3. $1.75 1912–2000: Knowing the Rules of the Game,” Kath- leen E. Kendall. June, 1998. Research Paper R-19. “Sound Bite Democracy: Network Evening News Pres- $2.00 idential Campaign Coverage, 1968 and 1988,” Kiku Adatto. June, 1990. Research Paper R-2. $2.00 “Clarifying the CNN Effect: An Examination of Media Effects According to Type of Military Inter- “Tritium and the Times: How the Nuclear Weapons- vention,” Steven Livingston. June, 1997. Research Production Scandal Became a National Story,” Paper R-18. $3.00 William Lanouette. May, 1990. Research Paper R-1. $2.75 “The Wisdom of the War Room: U.S. Campaigning and Americanization,” Margaret Scammell. April, 1997. Research Paper R-17. $3.50 WORKING PAPERS “Framing Identity: The Press in Crown Heights,” “Discourse and Its Discontents,” Frederick Schauer. Carol B. Conaway. November, 1996. Research Paper September, 1994. Working Paper 94-2. $10.00 R-16. $3.00 “Real-Time Television Coverage of Armed Conflicts “Busted By the Ad Police: Journalists’ Coverage of and Diplomatic Crises: Does It Pressure or Distort For- Political Campaign Ads in the 1992 Presidential Cam- eign Policy Decisions?” Nik Gowing. June, 1994. paign,” Michael Milburn and Justin Brown. July, 1995. Working Paper 94-1. $12.50 Research Paper R-15. $3.00 Please direct any publication inquiry or request to: “The Media, the Public and the Development of Can- didates’ Images in the 1992 Presidential Election,” The Joan Shorenstein Center Dean Alger. October, 1994. Research Paper R-14. $2.50 on the Press, Politics and Public Policy “The Future of Global Television News,” Richard John F. Kennedy School of Government Parker. September, 1994. Research Paper R-13. $2.75 Harvard University 79 John F. Kennedy Street “Ownership of Newspapers: The View from Positivist Cambridge, MA 02138 Social Science,” C. Edwin Baker. September, 1994. ATTN: Publications Research Paper R-12. $2.75 “Transmitting Race: The Los Angeles Riot in Televi- Telephone: (617) 495-8269 sion News,” Erna Smith. May, 1994. Research Paper Fax: (617) 495-8696 R-11. $2.75 Web Site Address: http://www.ksg. harvard.edu/~presspol “How Voters Construct Images of Political Candi- dates: The Role of Political Advertising and Televised News,” Montague Kern and Marion Just. April, 1994. Research Paper R-10. $2.50