PRAGMATIC NEWS 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 journalist 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 journalism 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 journalists 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,