Opinionated Journalism: Beyond the Rule of Objectivity
The Holy News/Opinions Divide
The managing editor at The Crimson, America’s “oldest continuously-published daily college newspaper,” run by a school of some prestige that starts with an H (not a Y), preached in a seminar for stuck-up journalistic neophytes that the holiest rule of thumb in professional journalism is the news/opinions divide. To maintain integrity and prevent biases, genuine reporting and opinionated rambling must be kept apart at all cost, less the reader confuse fact for agenda and agenda for fact. At The Crimson, writers and editors for the two sections purposefully stay out of each other’s way, refrain from reviewing each other’s content and keep a respectful distance from start to finish.
"To maintain integrity and prevent biases, genuine reporting and opinionated rambling must be kept apart at all cost, less the reader confuse fact for agenda and agenda for fact."
Crammed onto the floor of the overcrowded newsroom, I entertained myself by picturing the shock and disgust that would materialize upon this editor’s visage, if she were to find out that I, a columnist for America’s “oldest continuously-published secondary school newspaper,” run by a school of some prestige that starts with an E (not an A), also religiously take upon myself the task of signing up for as many news articles as the scowling, exasperated upper board would allow. And neither am I the first one. A certain news editor, before converting wholly to the “unbiased” side of the divide, once juggled the double identity of a reporter and a columnist, with the catchy tag line “outside the Exeter bubble.”
That such a thing could be condoned, not once but frequently in recent history—is this a sign of how far our paper has fallen into disrepute? Or rather, is it simply proof that the news/opinions is, despite what idealistic managing-editors would say, not so concrete a line after all? What serves as the densimeter for journalistic purity, and can “opinionated journalism,” whatever that means, ever be true journalism?
Censoring Subjectivity
Despite the overlap of writers for our opinions and news sections, The Exonian still strives to quarantine news articles from all marks of the individual and their agenda. One of the golden rules that reporter-wannabes must know is to avoid injecting overt statements of personal opinions or thoughts of any kinds; furthermore, conclusions and summaries are also discouraged, and “strong” adjectives such as beautiful, silly, horrible, etc. do not have a place in the high-quality article. Quotes must be bountiful and diverse. Sentences starting with “many people believe” or “it is generally accepted that” quickly get crossed out in the editing process.
Do not get me wrong, I am by no means implying that this diligent battle against the subjective does not have its merits. Objectivity as a principle in journalism emerged out of the eighteenth century, the Age of Enlightenment, and encompasses nonpartisanship, factuality and most important of all: disinterestedness. The argument is that the reporter should act as a mirror through which readers can see the truth reflected and make value judgements based on their own critical thinking. With the amount of power that it possesses, it is immoral for the media to act as propagandist. In an age where freedom of the individual is regarded as a sacred right, no one will condone articles that preach, and publications that feature such writing will soon be shunned.
The Inevitability of Bias
Erving Goffman, the life-long scholar of day-to-day interactions, the perpetual vulture scouting for hidden needles and pins behind sunny dry-eyed how do you dos would say, with a twirl of his ink pen, that all life is drama. In 1982, his first daughter was born. That same year, he died of stomach cancer.
My dear reader, I pledge myself to be guiltless of inferences and nudge nudge implications of any sort; you see, all I did here was presenting you two facts, verified by the reliably egalitarian source that is Wikipedia, our sacred encyclopaedia. It is in your mind that the narrative is constructed; I did not mean for you to see a blithe young thing wailing for breast-milk to assuage the emptiness in its stomach while a man, its father, doubles over growling because he has a hole in his stomach and it is growing. It is growing.
I lied. I don’t know if the writer is sinner or saint, but they are rarely ever innocent. Why did I, as a writer, handpick these two facts out of the one thousand and one conundrums of Goffman’s biographied self? From the moment these words formed in my head I was cognizant, consciously or unconsciously, of the emotions they would evoke in you. Life is a transient vacuum waiting to be filled. As you trudge through the repetitive rhythms that brings you a day closer to unbeing you imbue monotony with meaning. You act upon the narratives that congeal in your head. This is why Gloria Steinem worked as a Playboy waitress to write A Bunny’s Tale. This is why John O’Sullivan canonized “manifest destiny.”
Though I cannot report on anything not spoken by my sources I can tailor my questions to elicit responses that would prove a certain point. If I’m writing an article about the use of GMOs, of course I need to get quotes from scientists, consumers, activists, people firmly for and firmly against its implementation. But depending on my stance and biases both latent and overt, I would structure my article differently, giving emphasis to certain viewpoints while relegating others to a complimentary “on the other hand” paragraph towards the end of the article.
A Case for the Guilty Writer
Is this really a bad thing? In recent years, journalists from all walks of life have started pushing against the conventional view; Brent Cunningham, for example, the managing editor of Columbia Journalism Review, alongside media critics Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman, have made arguments about the futility, and indeed the irresponsibility, of the objectivity standard.
According to Cunningham, objectivity serves as an excuse for “lazy reporting;” at the heart of the matter, the press is tasked with being “neutral yet investigative, disengaged yet have an impact, fair-minded yet have an edge.”
War-time journalism, in particular, is a field that has recently seen much advocacy for a more “attached” approach, with CNN war correspondent from the US, Christiane Amanpour, stating that in some circumstances "neutrality can mean you are an accomplice to all sorts of evil." This can apply not only to war-time journalism but also journalism about human rights. Dear reader, if you were a journalist, would you write about the Rohingya refugees’ plight in a disinterested, forensic manner? How about the shooting of eighteen innocent children in Parkland, Florida? How about the murder without warrant of alleged “drug dealers” under the Duterte regime?
The better approach, therefore, is to bypass objectivity and reach for journalism that emphasizes fairness. All sides should have a chance to present their viewpoints. However, as long as this is accomplished, even in a strictly “news-section” article reporters should not shy away from taking a stance, as long as they do not distort or conjure up facts.