THINKING THINGS OVER
The Press: Time for a New Era?
The BBC and New York Times scandals show that "objectivity" is dead.
BY ROBERT L. BARTLEY - WSJ.com
Monday, July 28, 2003 12:01 a.m.
With the New York Times and the British Broadcasting Corp. both in the soup, something big must be going on in journalism.
Let me give you one view of what that is, based on watching my craft evolve over 30 years as a senior editor. I think we're coming to the end of the era of "objectivity" that has dominated journalism over this time. We need to define a new ethic that lends legitimacy to opinion, honestly disclosed and disciplined by some sense of propriety.
Though an opinion journalist myself, I'm certainly not against attempts at objectivity. Indeed I believe the ethic is a more powerful influence than disgruntled readers and viewers often seem to believe; it's simply not true that journalists conspire to slant the news in favor of their friends and causes. Yet it's also true that in claiming "objectivity" the press often sees itself as a perfect arbiter of ultimate truth. This is a pretension beyond human capacity.
Especially so given the demands of modern technology. With instant radio, television and now the Internet taking over bulletin-board news, newspapers have to make their mark explaining not just events but their meaning. This is manifestly a matter of opinion.
The opinion of the press corps tends toward consensus because of an astonishing uniformity of viewpoint. Certain types of people want to become journalists, and they carry certain political and cultural opinions. This self-selection is hardened by peer group pressure. No conspiracy is necessary; journalists quite spontaneously think alike. The problem comes because this group-think is by now divorced from the thoughts and attitudes of readers. To take politics as a test, in 1992, a sample of top Washington reporters and editors voted 89% to 7% for Bill Clinton over George H.W. Bush.
So an editor trying to put out objective reports has to contend with a newsroom dominated by a single viewpoint. Bringing some discipline to this process is no easy task, especially since the editor probably also subscribes to the dominant view. Some editors are better than others in instilling discipline, and some news organizations are better than others in building and sustaining a culture that supports their efforts at objectivity.
The problem at the BBC looks classic. It admits that David Kelly, the scientist who took his own life, was indeed the principal source for the radio report by correspondent Andrew Gilligan. It alleged that the government "sexed up" its dossier, particularly by inserting a single-source report that Iraq could launch weapons of mass destruction in 45 minutes. Later Mr. Gilligan amplified this in print, writing in The Mail on Sunday that his source blamed the prime minister's press spokesman Alastair Campbell.
Mr. Kelly was not, as many had assumed, a senior official privy to negotiations with political leadership. And in testimony to a parliamentary committee, he said of Mr. Gilligan's report, "I don't see how he could make the authoritative statements he was making from the comments that I made." Mr. Gilligan stands by his original report, so either the BBC or the dead man is lying. Also, the committee cleared Mr. Campbell.
The BBC is still defending its report with an implicit suggestion that it was not responsible for what its reporter wrote in The Mail on Sunday. But it develops that an earlier Gilligan report from Baghdad suggested that U.S. troops had not taken the airport when in fact they had. Clearly the fellow needed careful watching, and the BBC culture, anti-war and anti-Blair, was not up to the task.
The New York Times case is complicated by the affirmative-action issue; as executive editor Howell Raines admitted before his resignation, their Jayson Blair was not watched closely enough in part because he was black. But Mr. Raines's tenure was also marked by a melding of news coverage and editorial commentary, most spectacularly in the crusade against the Augusta National Golf Club for its male-only membership policy--a crusade on behalf of a few millionairesses.
The telling question is whether such things will continue under Bill Keller, the new executive editor. Mr. Keller has recently been a commentator, and his views have often been intelligent and nuanced, particularly as shown in a Times magazine profile of Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. Even so, the Media Research Center was able to trot out an arresting set of screeching-liberal quotations. Times commentary has recently been lurching to the left, but it has just announced a new columnist, David Brooks, who started his career on the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal.
I frankly doubt that Mr. Keller will succeed in restoring objectivity or balance to the Times newsroom. Former executive editor A.M. Rosenthal, actually a conservative, had a hard enough time. Then too, the current tone and culture are the work of publisher Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr., who remains in charge at the sufferance of his family. Indeed, as the Times leaves New York and becomes a national newspaper a liberal reputation might serve its business interests, as Fox News has prevailed over cable television rivals by offering a conservative flavor.
As I suggested at the outset, I'm not disturbed by such prospects. I think these pages have established that opinion journalism, not following consensus group-think, can find a lot of news. But journalists can't have it both ways. Since they're increasingly dealing with subjective opinion, they should stop wearing "objectivity" on their sleeves.
Mr. Bartley is editor emeritus of The Wall Street Journal. His column appears Mondays in the Journal and on OpinionJournal.com. |
