....Objectivity refers to an honest seeking of the truth, whatever that truth may turn out to be and regardless of what its implications might be. Neutrality refers to a preconceived "balance," which subordinates the truth to this preconception.....
This concept is like the one in a recently posted Crichton article on scientific consensus. I have heard the notion of consensus vigorously mocked in discussions here on SI. Crichton didn't disparage it. He simply said it was applicable to political questions, not scientific ones.
The same is the case for objectivity and neutrality. Both apply in journalism but for different aspects. Where there are split political constituencies, then neutrality is applicable just as consensus is applicable to political issues. I would agree that US journalists hiding their preference for a US win in a war is over the top. US audiences all want that, too, and if some don't, who gives a damn about them. Even for US media with international audiences, it's reasonable to expect journalists to favor the US. On matters where there are split constituencies, though, it seems to me that neutrality is the tone they should adopt.
None of which rules out objectivity. That goes without saying. There is no dichotomy between objectivity and neutrality. I think that premise is a clever opening for an article, but he strays and ends up with a mishmash. The labeling that he questions isn't about "truth." News rarely has anything to do with truth so the point is not relevant. Getting your facts right is not the same as finding truth. Neither is objectivity the same as truth.
I had just flipped through the news and heard a report of a study that found that coffee reduces the risk of diabetes. The objective facts of the report were stated, the tone was matter of fact, and the closing was that, since studies on coffee have produced mixed results, more study is needed. Most news is like that.
Coffee is less political than the correlation between abortion and breast cancer, so a more studied neutrality is needed than for the coffee story only because advocates will pick at what is said. The coffee issue pits cardiologists against endocrinologists, but they're not as volatile as the choice/life folks. <g> Otherwise, the scenarios are the same. And objectivity and neutrality are both served. |
