Can Journalists Be Objective?
In the mid-1980s Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC) and a group named Fairness in Media asked “almost one million” conservatives to invest their dollars in CBS stock and elect corporate directors who would “put an end to liberal media bias.”
Whether one agrees with Helms or not, his proposal raises complex issues.
Was, or is, CBS News liberal? If so, what is “liberal?” If by some standard we can describe “liberal,” and if CBS News is “liberal,” how exactly are news judgments effected? Would news stories be more “biased” or less “biased” if CBS News were “conservative,” assuming someone could explain what “conservative” means? What would it take for TV news to be “objective” and who is to define that term? How, in practice, does “objective” differ from “liberal” or “conservative?” Would it be okay if 1 million “liberals” bought stock in the News Corporation, the owner of Fox Broadcasting?
Media History In The U.S.
Throughout American history there have been avowed political publications and in a sense the Helm’s effort to take over CBS follows in this tradition. As examples, William Lloyd Garrison (1805-1879) published the Liberator, a paper opposed to slavery. William Randolph Hearst (1863-1951) used his papers to encourage the Spanish-American War. Today websites, programs and publications favoring a variety of political, social, economic and religious viewpoints are available in every community.
At some point in every field there must be a person who makes decisions, who has responsibility. We have judges who review laws, doctors who recommend treatments, and also we have journalists who define what’s news and what isn’t for a particular website, publication or program.
No one argues that the decisions made by journalists are perfect or can be perfect, however one defines “perfection.” News reporting is a subjective field where many views are possible, one reason we have — and should have — so many media outlets. But journalism should be left to journalists, however imperfect, rather than business tycoons, political theorists or other vested interests. One may not always agree with the judgments made by independent reporters, but at least such decisions are not made with other obligations in mind.