The Pretense of Journalistic Objectivity

It's Michael Kinsley day here at the Frontal Cortex. Over at the Guardian, Kinsley has another stupendous piece lamenting the sharp division that American newspapers (especially the NY Times) try to draw between fact and opinion.

According to a column by its "public editor" (aka ombudsman, or official busybody), the New York Times has been asking itself whether it does enough to distinguish between fact and opinion in its pages. A "newsroom committee on credibility" looked into the matter and decided that what was needed was a "news/opinion divide committee". The nine lucky editors on this committee "worked for months" to come up with a new system for helping Times readers who can't figure out that "President Bush flew to Texas yesterday" is a fact, whereas "President Bush is a bozo" is an opinion.

Of course, from the perspective of neuroscience, Kinsely is exactly right. It's neurologically ludicrous to believe that the human mind can exercise perfectly objective judgment, or analyze information free from bias. Our subjective emotions distort every iota of information that enters our head.

That said, I still think the sharp division of fact and opinion should be preserved at newspapers, if only as an act of aspiration. Journalistic objectivity might be impossible, but it's still a laudable goal. If we stop trying to describe the world as-it-is (and not as we want it to be), then what's to keep us all from becoming Bill O'Reilly's?


More like this

Since last fall, poll questions across surveys have tapped public belief in the link between hurricanes and global warming. In this post, I provide a round up of poll findings in chronological order starting last year just after Katrina hit. The impacts of Katrina and Rita received saturation…
A couple days ago, one of my doctors told me that "if you could bottle your sarcasm and sell it, you'd be a rich woman." So of course, I had to take this online quiz to see how it measures up against medical opinion. I'll let you peek below the fold for my results, and I hope that you share your…
My cute little house looked a lot better before my meager possessions were strewn aimlessly across every flat surface. It didn't help that this was an unusually busy week at work. I did, however, manage to catch this spot-on essay from Michael Kinsley, at Slate. He writes: Here in Washington,…
In Wednesday's column, Boston Globe opinion writer Derrick Z. Jackson draws an interesting contrast between two presidents' handling of the nation's body of science in the face of adversity. Publicly, President Eisenhower downplayed the significance of Sputnik. A "useless hunk of iron." Privately,…

I remember listening to Howie Carr on the radio. I only listen because the sheer idiocy of both him and his callers is entertaining on a level that couldn't be achieved by even the most talented comedian.

Anyway, when listening to him one day during his many bashing sessions aimed at the Boston Globe, one of his callers suggested that the paper "stop putting the editorials on the front page" to revive circulation (ignoring the fact that newspapers are losing circulation across the board, not just the more liberal-leaning ones). It's amazing. He is essentially complaining that the Boston Globe (and the NYT and others) aren't simply recycling the conservative zietgeist daily and are sometimes reporting inconvenient facts.

A perfect illustration of what you're talking about. As a side note I'm ashamed to be from the same state and city in which Howie Carr was born (Portland, ME).

Simply trying to maintain the division between fact and opinion isn't suitable for newspapers in any case. It's a fact that millions of people in the US, some of them in positions of wealth, power and/or public trust believe that a supernatural entity, typically modeled as a white man in beard and robe with an august expression on his face, created the heaven and the earth and all that is therein roughly 6,000 years ago. It's also a fact that tens of thousands of scientists, who have had the training and education to evaluate such claims about the natural world, say that the first group of people is (insofar as the empirically discoverable universe goes) spouting a load of baloney. If I simply report the first fact, with lots of supporting quotes, I doubt anyone would call me an objective reporter.