from
The Handbook of Global Communication and Media Ethics, First Edition. Edited by
Robert S. Fortner and P. Mark Fackler
We are in the middle of the fifth revolution
in journalism ethics since modern journalism began in the seventeenth century.1
The changes are prompted by a broader media revolution where new forms of
communication transform societies and create a media-linked global world.
The new global media ecology is a chaotic
landscape evolving at a furious pace. Professional journalists share the
journalistic sphere with tweeters, bloggers, citizen journalists, and social
media users around the world. The future of professional journalism in various
forms, such as investigative journalism at newspapers, is cast in doubt as
audiences migrate online and newsroom budgets shrink. Much has been written on
how new media expands our idea of who is a journalist, while generating
controversial practices (Friend and Singer, 2007). This democratization” of
journalism – the spread of publishing technology among citizens – occurs as
journalism acquires global reach and impact.
Ultimately, these changes challenge the
foundations of journalism ethics. The intersection of the amateur and the
professional in journalism creates both communication possibilities and ethical
debates. Time-honored principles such as objectivity are questioned.
Journalists adopt new descriptions of themselves, as “sherpas” guiding readers
through the information maze, as global “aggregators” of bloggers and web
sites, as facilitators of online dialogue. All work to the relentless demands
of a 24-hour news clock.
A multimedia, global journalism creates a
tension among values on two levels. The first level is due to online journalism.
The culture of traditional journalism, with its values of accuracy,
prepublication verification, balance, impartiality, and professional
gate-keeping, rubs up against the culture of online journalism which emphasizes
immediacy, transparency, partiality, nonprofessional journalists and
postpublication correction.
The second level is due to the emergence of a
journalism that is global in reach. If journalism has global impact, what are
its global responsibilities? The result is a tension between local and global
values, patriotic journalism and a more global approach to reporting (Ward and
Wasserman, 2008).
Journalism ethics must do more than point out
these tensions and describe the trends. It must develop a new and coherent
approach to this tangle of values and issues. It must develop guidelines for
problem areas, such as the pressure to report rumors online. Nothing less than
a philosophical rethinking of journalism ethics from the ground up will do. As
I will argue, we need to construct a multimedia, global journalism ethics.
The aim of this chapter is to explain the
idea of a multimedia, global journalism ethics and to propose what I call
“multidimensional objectivity” as one of its principles. I begin by describing
three features that should characterize this new ethics: ecumenicalism,
cosmopolitanism, and a commitment to “public-guided” ethics.
I then argue that a global journalism should
embrace multidimensional objectivity since it is better suited to a multimedia,
global journalism than earlier notions of journalism objectivity.
Multidimensional objectivity is my updated conception of pragmatic objectivity,
which I introduced in The Invention of Journalism Ethics (Ward, 2005a).
In describing a new ethics, I am not
describing an existing entity. A global journalism ethics has yet to be
constructed. It is, at present, a project, an ideal, a movement. Therefore, my
method is philosophical and normative. Looking at current trends, I say how
journalism ethics should change if it is to guide responsible journalism
in the twenty-first century.
Shape of a Future Ethics
Layered journalism
To argue for a future ethics, I need to say
how I envisage journalism in the future. For brevity, I focus on a few
structural features of the newsroom in the future – those features that will
have the most impact on ethics.
The newsroom of the future will practice
“layered journalism.”2 Layered journalism brings together different forms of
journalism and different types of journalists to produce a multimedia offering
of professional-styled news and analysis combined with citizen journalism and
interactive chat.
The newsroom will be layered vertically and
horizontally. Vertically, there will be many layers of editorial roles,
positions, and supervisor personnel. There will be citizen journalists and
bloggers in the newsroom, or closely associated with the newsroom. Many
contributors will work from countries around the world. Some will write for
free, some will be equivalent to paid freelancers, others will be regular commentators.
In addition, there will be different types of editors. Some editors will work
with these new journalists, while other editors will deal with unsolicited images
and text sent by citizens via email, websites, and Twitter. There will be
editors or “community producers” charged with going out to neighborhoods to
help citizens use media to produce their own stories.
Horizontally, the future newsroom will be
layered in terms of the kinds of journalism it produces, from print and
broadcast sections to online production centers.
Newsrooms in the past have also had vertical
and horizontal layers. Newspaper newsrooms, for example, have ranged vertically
from the editor in-chief at the top to the cub reporter on the bottom.
Horizontally, large mainstream newsrooms have produced several types of
journalism, both print and broadcast. Today, many newsrooms exhibit the
characteristics of layered journalism. Newspapers have interactive websites and
employ bloggers. Online news websites, such as OhMyNews.com in South Korea,
combine professional and citizen journalists in complex ways.
However, the future production of journalism
will develop this layering to an even greater degree of complexity. Future
newsrooms will have additional and different layers. Of course, not all sites
for the production of journalism will exhibit the features of layered
journalism. Some sites will be operated by a few people dedicated only to one
format, such as blogging. However, a substantial core of the “new mainstream
media” will consist of these complex, layered journalism organizations.
Ethics of Layered Journalism
What sort of ethics is most appropriate for
layered journalism? Four types of problems will dominate: vertical, horizontal,
public, and global.
First, there will be “vertical” ethical
questions about how the different layers of the newsroom, from professional
editors to citizen freelancers, should interact to produce responsible
journalism. By what standards will professional editors evaluate the
contributions of citizen journalists?
Second, there will be “horizontal” questions
about the norms for the various newsroom sections. One set of questions will be
about the values that all sections should honor, regardless of their medium, or
“media platform.” Another set of questions will revolve around whether to allow
certain sections to operate according to different guidelines because of the
distinctive nature of their media platform. For instance, should the online
section be allowed to publish stories before the print section because of the
speed and immediacy of the Internet? How important will “being first” be to the
organization, and what protocols will be used when online journalists come
under pressure to report unverified claims because the story is already “out
there” on the Internet? Questions of consistency will loom large. Can “local
variations” in the ethics of sections within a news outlet be justified? For
example, if a newspaper requires the authors of letters to the editor in its
print version to be signed, how can it justify allowing commentary on its
online chat forum to be anonymous?
Third, layered newsrooms, and the rise of the
citizen as both producer and consumer of media, will raise serious questions
about the role of the public in journalism ethics. Is ethics a discussion for
professionals only? Can the public do more than complain about bad journalism
to news councils?
Fourth, there will be questions about the
relationship of the newsroom to the world at large. As journalists use
technology that influences citizens around the world, they will become tangled
up in questions about international standards for journalists and about the
responsibilities of journalism to a global world.
Finding a reasoned and coherent way of
answering these difficult questions is the goal of a reinvented journalism
ethics. This sketch of the ethical questions of the future leads to my claim
that an adequate ethics will have to display three general properties. It
should be ecumenical, public-guided, and cosmopolitan in attitude.
I now explain each property.
Ecumenical
ethics
The multimedia nature of the layered newsroom
calls for an ecumenical approach to ethics. I borrow the term “ecumenical” from
its original Christian context, which is the desire to find unity among the
sects of Christianity, despite their differences.
Ecumenicalism does not seek to impose a unity
that ignores (or is intolerant of ) differences. It is an attempt to recognize
differences within a common framework of values. By analogy, ecumenicalism in
journalism is the search for a new framework for today’s mixed media, a
unifying set of values that are realized in different ways by different forms
of journalism.
Ecumenicalism starts with the notion that a
healthy public sphere in a democracy is as free as possible, and populated by
many forms of communication and a diversity of communicators. Different forms
of journalism fulfill different public functions.
Ecumenicalism also believes that this freedom
and diversity should be used in an ethical manner, if the public sphere is to
be a place for reliable public information and reasoned debate. A core group of
public informers must be dedicated to responsible journalism in the public
interest. They must be committed to norms and principles that support informed
and deliberative discussion on essential public issues. Ecumenicalism does not
assume that all communicators will use their chosen medium in an ethical
manner, especially not in an age where the number of citizen journalists and
media producers grows exponentially. It does believe however, that, if
deliberative democracy is to be possible, ethics needs to be taken seriously
and by a substantial group of practitioners across media platforms.
Journalism ethics is ecumenical if it
provides a unifying conception of the main goals and values of all forms of
responsible journalism. It seeks to articulate what should be the (changing)
roles of journalism in a democratic sphere. Such aims are often articulated in
short phrases such as “informing a self-governing citizenry,” or “serving the
public interest.” Journalism ethics must expand and clarify the meaning of such
phrases as journalism and society evolve. In addition, ecumenical journalism
ethics should articulate a number of general principles and standards as means
toward the aforementioned aims. The principles may include truth-seeking, editorial
independence, minimizing harm to the vulnerable, and being accountable and
transparent to one’s public.3
Journalism ethics is ecumenical if it also
adopts another central idea: these aims and principles can be interpreted and
practiced in many different ways in a diverse public sphere. “Respecting
differences” ecumenically means rejecting the idea that there is one set of
aims and one set of principles that all journalists must adopt uniformly.
Instead, ecumenicalism asserts that ethics should work from the assumption that
journalists will not adopt uniformly the same set of aims and principles, and
even where they agree, journalists will interpret principles and aims in
different ways. This diversity of ethical interpretation can occur on several
levels. With regard to aims, journalists can understand “serving the public
interest” as objectively reporting on event, or as interpreting events, or as
bringing about needed social change. Similarly, journalists can disagree on
principles. An objective reporter may argue that journalists need to be neutral
in serving the public interest; the investigative journalist and the blogger
reject neutrality and argue for informed inquiry and discussion from a
perspective.
Journalists can also disagree on specific
standards and rules of practice. For example, the print reporter for a quality
newspaper may argue for prepublication tests for accuracy and verification
through careful editorial gate-keeping. The online journalist may argue that
she works in a medium where speed and the transparent sharing of information as
it arrives, even if it is not fully verified, is more important than
withholding information. The online journalist can argue that she still
subscribes to the overall goal of journalism to inform the public and stimulate
debate, but that norms of practice need to reflect the nature of the medium.
Ecumenicalism responds to this diversity of
views and forms of journalism by asserting what I call the principle of
communicative intention: The norms of practice for any specific form of
communication, including forms of journalism, is influenced by the nature and
intent of the communication, as well as by what the public expects of this form
of communication. So we should seek to shape the ethics of journalism to fit
the communication form.
This two-fold approach of ecumenicalism –
unifying aims and principles, and more particular norms of practice adapted to
different forms of journalism – is one way that ethics can address the four
kinds of questions of layered journalism noted above. Of course, not every
practice can be justified by simply stating that it follows from the nature of
one’s medium. It is difficult to see how posting a flimsy (and false) rumor
that does serious harm to a person’s reputation could be justified whatever the
medium. It may be that an online writer’s love of immediacy and speed can never
be reconciled with ethics. However, we should not rush to that conclusion.
Online journalism, for example, may develop
new and reasonable norms of practice for dealing with the pressures of speed
and immediacy. Online journalism may take advantage of the connected nature of
the Internet to develop a postpublication process for checking and testing
stories. Online groups and communities have already developed ways to monitor
false claims and identify unreliable writers. Also, online journalism can use
the Internet’s global linkages to let readers check for themselves the veracity
of reports by inserting hyperlinks to original sources. True, much of this
testing will come after the posting, but we should not thereby conclude that
protocols cannot be developed that enhance the responsible use of the medium.
Even where it appears that an ethical
approach is impossible, such as the use of unverified video and text from
little-known sources, norms of practice can evolve. For example, mainstream
news coverage of demonstrations in Iran after the June 2009 presidential
election is a vivid example of how newsrooms can develop protocols that allow
amateur and professional journalism to coexist. In Iran, professional foreign
journalists were forbidden to cover “unauthorized” demonstrations. Meanwhile,
Iranian citizens used the new media of Twitter, YouTube, cell phones, and text
messaging to circulate pictures and commentary around the world.
Major news organizations, such as the BBC and
CNN, used this information carefully. News anchors repeatedly explained to the
public the limitations on their own journalists and why they were using
citizen-generated information. They warned viewers that they could not verify
the veracity of many of the images, or the identity of the sources. Although
bogus and erroneous information was circulated by these means, vital
information was also made public. The Iran coverage shows that the ecumenical
search for combining responsibly the old and new forms of journalism is
possible and indeed developing.4
The ecumenical approach seems almost
inevitable, given the direction of journalism. It is unlikely that the new
vertical and horizontal questions will be resolved by insisting that the
blogger, the tweeter, or the citizen journalist adhere completely to the more
restrictive norms of practice that guide other forms of journalism, such as
“straight” professional news reporting. Conversely, more traditional modes of
journalism, such as verified reporting in the quality papers, should not abandon
the values that have long defined their medium. They should not simply opt for
the more freewheeling practices of the Internet. The ethical challenge is to maintain
common values for journalism while showing how ethical norms of practice can
legitimately vary according to the medium.
Public-guided
ethics
If my argument is correct, the new ethics
should be ecumenical. Yet, as noted above, multimedia technology, now available
to the public, makes questions about the role of the public inescapable. This
situation suggests a second feature that should characterize all plausible
forms of new ethics. It is a commitment to a public-guided ethics.
As the walls between professional and amateur
journalism crumble, it becomes clear that any future ethics should involve the
public in a manner that goes far beyond current mechanisms for discussion. The
new ethics will be “public-guided” if it creates opportunities for the public
to have a voice in the formulation, monitoring, and reforming of the ethics of
journalism – to construct norms that apply to professionals and amateurs (Ward,
2005b). The public, as themselves producers of media content, would be asked to
construct an ethics for their blogs and websites. The public would be asked:
What do they expect, ethically, of today’s news media? What norms of practice
do they want bloggers to honor? What forms of editing should be used online? Do
they want traditional media to remain committed to the values of gate-keeping
and prepublication verification?
A public-guided ethics is to be contrasted to
both an elite professional approach to ethics and an excessively egalitarian
approach, or “populism,” that simply asks the public to vote on ethical issues.
Majority vote decides all. A professional approach thinks ethical policy and
decisions should be determined primarily (or only) by professionals inside
newsrooms. Most existing mechanisms of public involvement take this approach.
News councils and ombudsmen are usually industry - funded agencies designed to
arbitrate complaints about stories after they have been published. The
role of the public is that of a disappointed consumer. Citizens complain to an
agency if the news “product,” like a cheap pair of new shoes, does not live up
to expectations.
The interactive nature of online
communication raises many possibilities for public discussion of journalism
ethics, from virtual public forums to “citizen assemblies.” 5 Even traditional mechanisms such as news councils can revise
their modes of operation. Take, for example, an attempt at public discussion of
ethics by the Washington State News Council (WNC) in Seattle. The state news
council received a complaint from Secretary of State Sam Reed against KIRO7
Eyewitness News, a CBS affiliate. Reed complained that two stories (aired
October 15 and November 3, 2008) about voting irregularities were “incorrect”
and “sensationalized.” KIRO did not reply to the WNC’s invitation to respond to
the complaint. Eventually, Reed decided not to seek a public WNC hearing.
With the complaint process stalled, the
council took an unprecedented step. It held a “virtual public hearing” on the
complaint. The WNC invited citizens to view the stories, read the complaint,
then vote and comment as a Citizens Online News Council. Of about 100 people
who voted online, only a few defended KIRO while most supported Reed’s
position.6
Public-guided ethics cannot be a series of
online votes. We need to structure public dialogue online and offline so that
it is representative, reflective, and based on the core principles of good
journalism. Otherwise, ethics can devolve into shifting opinion polls. Nevertheless,
in the meantime, we can start exploring how the new communication tools can
contribute to a public-guided ethics.
Cosmopolitanism
A third property of the new ethics should be
a cosmopolitan approach to journalism and its global responsibilities.
Cosmopolitanism can provide a unifying perspective from which to see the
ultimate aims of today’s journalism.
The proposal to transform journalism ethics
by adopting a cosmopolitan, global perspective swims against journalism
history. Across the 400 years of modern journalism, from broadsides to blogs,
its ethics has been parochial. It has been assumed that journalists serve the
readers of a local newspaper, the audience for a regional news broadcast, or
the citizens of a country. Most of the 400 codes of journalism ethics in the
world today are for local, regional or national media. Little is said about
whether journalists have a responsibility to citizens beyond one’s town or
country. However, in a global world, why not define one’s public as readers within
and without my country? Why not talk about global journalism ethics?
Some of the elements of a global ethics
exist. When we compare codes of journalism ethics internationally we see
agreement on basic principles such as to report the truth, to avoid bias, to
distinguish news and opinion, and to serve the public. When African journalists
drew up the Windhoek Declaration on Promoting an Independent and Pluralistic
African Press in 1991 (MISA, 1991), they invoked the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights to promote press freedom on their continent. Already, there is a
growing movement of scholars, journals, and books on global media ethics (Black
and Barney, 2002; Cooper et al., 1989; Ward, 2005b; Ward and Wasserman,
2008). There exist a number of international declarations of news media
principles. Of special note is the development of an international approach to
the study of media communication and journalism. The studies provide a portrait
of the “news people” around the world and how their media systems and values
compare (Demers, 2007; Weaver, 1998).
However, it is possible to question the
project of global journalism ethics. Why should we consider taking this
audacious step? Is ethics not complicated enough?
There are several reasons. First, media corporations
are increasingly global enterprises. Technology gives news organizations the
ability to gather information instantly from remote locations. The reach of the
Al-Jazeera and CNN networks, for example, extends beyond the Arab world or the
American public. Global issues and the power of global media organizations call
for an ethics that is global in its principles and in its understanding of
media.
Second, global impact entails global
responsibilities (De Beer, 2004; McPhail, 2006; Seib, 2002). Reports, via
satellite or the Internet, reach people around the world and influence the
actions of governments, militaries, and humanitarian agencies. A parochial
journalism can wreak havoc. Unless reported properly, North American readers
may fail to understand violence in the Middle East. Jingoistic reports can
portray other cultures as a threat. A global journalism is required in a world
where media bring together a plurality of religions and ethnic groups with varying
values and agendas. Our world is not a cozy McLuhan village. Publication of
cartoons of Muslim’s Prophet Mohammed in one paper in one country, Denmark,
spread violence around the world. In such a climate, we need to emphasize journalism
as a bridge for understanding across cultures.
Third, a global-minded journalism is needed
to help citizens understand the daunting global problems of poverty,
environmental degradation, technological inequalities, and political
instability. Fourth and finally, a global ethics is needed to unify journalists
in constructing a fair and informed media. Without global principles it is
difficult to criticize media practices in other countries, including severe
restrictions on the press.
In sum, the sufficiency of parochial ethics
has been undermined by the globalization of news media. Journalism ethics will
not be credible if it avoids engagement with these new complexities.
Elements
of global ethics
To develop a global ethics, journalists would
need to place much greater weight on their responsibilities to people beyond their
borders. The attitude needed is ethical cosmopolitanism. The roots of
cosmopolitanism go back to the stoics, Roman law, the Christian notion of a
brotherhood of man, and Kant’s imperative (Kant, 1997) to treat all humans as
“ends in themselves.” Cosmopolitan ethics asserts that our ethical behavior
should be based on the equal value of all people, as members of a common
humanity.
Cosmopolitanism (Brock and Brighouse, 2005)
has received increasing attention because of the debate over the responsibilities
of developed countries to the appalling poverty and illness on this planet.
Nussbaum (2006), for instance, has put cosmopolitanism forward as an antidote
to parochialism in ethics and especially in issues of justice.
Cosmopolitan journalists see themselves
primarily as agents of a global public sphere, rather than as agents of a local
public. Journalism’s contract with society becomes a “multisociety” contract
with citizens in many countries. As I have argued elsewhere, a global approach
would require a redefinition of the ultimate aims of journalism. The aim would
become not just the flourishing of a local or national public but the
flourishing of humanity at large (Ward, 2005c, 2010). For global ethics, a
report would not be counted as accurate and balanced unless it included
international sources and crosscultural perspectives. Also, global journalism would
reject extreme patriotism. Journalists would become global patriots attached to
the expansion of human rights, democratic life, and social justice around the
globe.
Let us summarize where we stand.
In the introduction, I argued that journalism
ethics is in turmoil because of changes brought about by a media revolution,
characterized by the twin forces of multimedia technology and the globalization
of journalism. I argued that we needed to reinvent journalism ethics as a
multimedia, global journalism ethics, and I explained how this new ethics
should be ecumenical, public-guided, and cosmopolitan.
In the second-half of this chapter, I propose
multidimensional objectivity, a reformulation of the idea of journalistic
objectivity, as a principle for this new ethics, only the facts, and eliminates comment and
interpretation by the reporter. The report is neutral between rival views.
Traditional objectivity was never just an
abstract ideal. It was, from the start, a practical system of norms that
restrained and governed practice. It disciplined journalism’s empiricism by
subjecting reporting to standards of verification, balance, and neutrality.
These standards were operationalized in newsrooms by rules on newsgathering and
story construction: all opinion must be clearly attributed to a source,
accompanied by direct quotation and careful paraphrasing; reporters must verify
facts by reference to studies and numerical analysis; and news reports must be
written from the detached tone of the third-person. Phrases that indicate a
bias are eliminated, or translated into neutral language.
Traditional objectivity was a strict,
reductive, one-dimensional form of objectivity. Objective reporters were completely
detached; eliminated all of their opinion; reported just the
facts. Objectivity was a policing action against the agents of error and bias –
the reporter’s desire to interpret, theorize, campaign, and judge.
The heyday of traditional objectivity was
from the 1920s to the 1960s in the broadsheet newspapers of North America.
However, the second half of the century is a story of challenge and decline due
to new forms of journalism, new technology, and new social conditions. Today,
we arrive at a dead end. Traditional objectivity is a spent ethical force,
doubted by journalist and academic. In practice, fewer journalists, especially
online journalists, embrace the ideal; “objectivity” gradually disappears from
codes of journalism ethics, while newsrooms adopt a reporting style that
includes perspective and interpretation. Nevertheless, the best option is not
to abandon objectivity tout court but to reform the conception.
Pragmatic
objectivity
Traditional objectivity went wrong when
journalists, seeking to discipline the rush for news, adopted a popular but
flawed version of objectivity – a stringent positivism of “just the facts.” In
addition, writers used the misleading metaphor of the objective journalist as a
recording instrument who passively observes and transmits facts. When
positivism and the passive model of journalism collapsed, so did traditional objectivity.
The morale is that we need a notion of
objectivity that is compatible with the idea of journalism as an active,
interpretive, cultural activity. We start by acknowledging that all works of
journalism are interpretations to some degree. This follows from a fact about
human cognition. What we believe to be true is the result of much
interpretation, hypothesis, and theory. The task of objectivity is not to
eliminate active inquiry and interpretation. The task is to test our
interpretations, selections, and judgments according to certain criteria.
In The Invention of Journalism Ethics (Ward,
2005a), I developed an alternate conception that I called “pragmatic
objectivity.” I called the conception “pragmatic” because objectivity is
valued, pragmatically, as a means to the goals of truth, fair judgment, and
ethical action. The claim of objectivity is not absolute but rather a fallible
judgment about a belief or report, based on a holistic weighing of several standards.
Pragmatic objectivity is multidimensional. It attempts to evaluate the many
dimensions of a story with a plurality of evaluative criteria.
How would multidimensional, pragmatic
objectivity work in a newsroom? Journalists would construct stories according
to a certain attitude, and then test the story according to criteria
appropriate to journalism.
The attitude is what I call the objective
stance. It consists in a number of intellectual virtues such as a
willingness to place a critical distance between oneself and the story, to be
open to evidence and counter-arguments, to fairly represent other perspectives,
and to be committed to the disinterested pursuit of truth for the public. One
is “disinterested” in not allowing one’s interests to prejudge a story. This is
not neutrality. It is the attitude of a critical inquirer.
However, it is not enough to have an
objective attitude. One has to apply this attitude by using criteria to test
the story for objectivity. The criteria come in at least five kinds.
First, there are criteria that test for empirical
validity. These criteria test the story for carefully obtained and
collaborated evidence, and the accurate presentation of that data. Empirical
validity is broader than reporting facts. It includes placing the facts in
context.
Second, there are criteria that test for completeness
and implications. Where appropriate, we check to see if the story
reasonably reports the likely implications for society, avoids hype, and
includes both negative and positive consequences.
Third, there are the criteria that test for coherence.
These criteria test the story for coherence with existing knowledge and the
views of credible experts. Journalists respect these criteria, for example,
when they compare the clinical trial of a drug with existing studies.
Fourth, there are criteria of self-consciousness.
An objective story is self-conscious about the frame it uses to present a study
or event, and the sources chosen. Have powerful sources manipulated the media
to present the story in a certain light? Is the story on crime in poor city
areas not also a story about social inequalities? Is the media’s depiction of a
war as a march towards freedom a biased perspective, ignoring the war’s
economic motivations?
Fifth, there are criteria that test for intersubjective
objectivity. Objectivity encourages inquirers to share ideas and facts with
other people – other journalists, experts, and citizens. Through this
interaction, mistakes are spotted, counter-evidence noted, other
interpretations brought forward. The objective reporter is open to varying
perspectives.
Journalists and their reports are objective
to the degree that they satisfy these kinds of criteria. To evaluate a story as
objective, we must weigh, holistically, a group of criteria. Satisfaction of
these criteria enhances the credibility, balance and depth of the report, while
adding to the likelihood of its truth.
Some people may be surprised that I include
such things as context and self-consciousness as elements of objectivity. This
is partly because of our cultural baggage. We assume, at least in journalism,
that objectivity is not multidimensional. It reduces to facts. However,
the language and the frames that we use can be as responsible for subjective
reports as much as a lack of facts. Objectivity is a complex method that
reflects the many dimensions of rational inquiry and evaluation.
Objectivity
and uncertainty
The complexity of multidimensional
objectivity may suggest that it is useful only in certain domains, like natural
science, where there is clear evidence, tough methods, and established
knowledge. However, objectivity as a method of thinking and testing is equally
important in situations of uncertainty, where the journalist struggles to
determine what is true or false, biased or objective.
At home or in foreign fields, truth-seeking
inquiry in journalism is an imperfect process that only gradually separates
fact from fiction, allegations from verified claims, and credible sources from
manipulative partisans. Journalism truth is a “protean thing which, like
learning, grows as a stalagmite in cave, drop by drop over time” (Kovach and
Rosenstiel, 2007, p. 44).
In war zones, the journalistic search for
truth faces many obstacles: restricted access to conflict areas, threats to the
personal safety of reporters and the confusing customs of foreign cultures.
Unlike soldiers and aid providers, many foreign journalists work completely
alone, with relative little resources or field support. In addition, war
correspondents must try to discern what is taking place, despite the fog of
war, the intense propaganda, the tug of patriotic feelings, and the speed of modern
warfare. The war correspondent has little time to verify atrocity stories or tales
of heroic action. Under such conditions, what is fact? What source is reliable?
Who or what is objective? Consider an example from Canadian foreign reporting.
In January 2002, Claude Adams flew to
Kathmandu to do a story on Nepal’s Maoist insurgency for the Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation (CBC). He was investigating allegations that the army
was executing civilians. He decided to focus on the killing of Khet Lamichhane,
described as a peasant farmer in the mountain village of Bageswari, west of
Kathmandu. Here is his experience, as he told it to me:
When we arrived there, townspeople gave us
their version of the story: Soldiers and police had arrived early in a December
morning, looking for a rebel unit that had spent the night in the village.
There was some kind of altercation and they opened fire. Khet Lamichhane was
shot in the mid-section and another man, a peddler, was chased into the woods
and killed. Lamichhane, bleeding profusely, begged for help and water. The
soldiers prevented anyone from helping him, and then told the townspeople to go
inside and close their windows and doors. One witness said she heard a soldier
asking an officer: “Should we give this man medical treatment?” The officer reportedly
answered: “Give him another bullet.” Then there was a shot. When the people
came out of their homes, Lamichhane’s body was gone. A day or two later, his family
arrived at the nearby headquarters town of Trisuli and asked for his body so they
could bury it. They were told Lamichhane had been cremated. A half-dozen townspeople
told me this story.
A local politician insisted that Lamichhane
was not a Marxist supporter, as did his family. A police official in Trisuli,
however, said the soldiers fired because they were ambushed, and that
Lamichhane was taken back to hospital where he died. Could I see the weapon he
was carrying? No. Could I meet the doctor who declared him dead? Could I talk
to an army officer who had been on the scene? No. Could I see any evidence that
Lamichhane was a terrorist? No. I would have to go to the Interior Ministry. I
repeatedly, phoned, faxed AND emailed both the interior ministry and the army
headquarters in Kathmandu for more information on the killing, and got no response
… I went back to the Human Rights Commission, but they could give me nothing
more, other than to say that there were many similar cases of civilian deaths and
disappearances. Weeks later, I contacted Amnesty International in London, but their
inquiries on my behalf also could not raise any more information on the case.”7
Adams eventually included the story of Khet
Lamichhane in a report on civilian killings in Nepal, despite the limitations
imposed on his reporting in Nepal. What do Adam’s experiences in Nepal say
about objectivity? Do the inherent limitations on conflict reporting make the
idea of pragmatic objectivity irrelevant or useless?
I do not think so. To the contrary, it is
precisely during complex journalistic assignments, that objectivity as a method
of thinking and testing is crucial. Objectivity will not guarantee truth. No
method can make such a claim. Following the method is better than not following
it. In uncertain situations, the methods of objectivity are about the only
defense the journalist has against bias and error. Adherence to objectivity
encourages the journalist to question claims and to take into account the
motivations of her sources.
Adams was trying to put a “human face” on a
story, a human face on human rights abuses by focusing on one village and the
death of one man. We see an experienced reporter struggling to retain the
objective stance. Adams had an initial story angle but he seeks to follow the
facts and to verify claims. He is open to sources. Adam’s gave the police
official’s version of events in his story, as unlikely as it sounded. Adams put
things in context, and he bears in mind existing knowledge of the conflict. He
tried to make the whole story cohere. He treats objectivity as
multidimensional. He weighs and balances various criteria.
However, this selecting and sifting process,
frustrated by obstacles at every turn, never reached anything approaching
certainty. Adams accumulated facts, testimony, and perspectives until the
balance of probabilities tipped in favor of reporting the story.
If we see objectivity as a sort of perfection
– a perfect knowledge of reality, or a perfect correspondence with fact, or a “proof”
of a hypothesis, then we will not see how objectivity operates in journalism.
We will interpret Adams’s struggles to produce a credible report as the absence
of objectivity and a victory for subjectivity. However, this is clearly a false
depiction. Adams struggles to improve his evidence through hard work. He does
not just make up the story, or think of what he reports as merely subjective.
Nor does he think of his reports as certain and absolute. He practices
pragmatic objectivity – he seeks a degree of objectivity, as much as possible
given the circumstances.
In practical enterprises we may have to
accept a less rigorous and precise methodology of objectivity, yet all the
while continuing to believe in the methodology’s importance.
Relevancy of Multidimensional Objectivity
I conclude by explaining why I think
multidimensional objectivity is a suitable reformulation of objectivity for
multimedia, global journalism.
In previous works I have argued for the
continuing relevancy of objectivity in journalism, if our goal is an informed
public journalism for democracy (Ward, 2005a). Objectivity, correctly
understood, encourages journalists to subject their work to critical reflection
and prods them to do better-researched stories. Adopting the objective stance
helps to counter-balance a public sphere redolent with instant analysis,
instant rumor, and manipulative sources. In other writings, I have argued that
pragmatic objectivity is important for peace journalism, and should be
incorporated into the principles of non-Western journalism traditions, such as
developmental journalism (Ward, 2004).
In this section, my aim is not to justify
objectivity as an ethical principle. It is to show how my idea of
multidimensional objectivity fits with the construction of a new ethics
characterized by ecumenicalism, public-mindedness, and cosmopolitanism. My
point is: If you want objectivity to be part of the new ethics,
multidimensional objectivity is an attractive conception.
Multidimensional objectivity fits
ecumenicalism because it can provide a unifying methodological principle for
different forms of journalism, yet it respects differences. Multidimensional is
a flexible method that can be applied in different degrees and in different
ways, according to the communicative intention of the form of journalism in
question.
Even if journalists seek different goals –
report the world, interpret it, or change it – responsible journalists can make
multidimensional objectivity a method for testing whatever stories are
produced, for whatever reasons. The form of objectivity that I have described
is not identifiable with any one form of journalism, one style of writing, or
one aim of journalism.
Traditional journalism objectivity applied
only to one form of journalism because it reduced objectivity to a strictly
factual description of news events. Objectivity, as “just the facts,” was not
applicable to forms of journalism that were more obviously interpretive, such
as the writing of editorials and columns.
By rethinking objectivity as a holistic
method, we see the possibility of using the criteria of objectivity to evaluate
many aspects of many kinds of journalism. For instance, the criteria of
empirical validity, coherence, and openness to perspectives can be used to
evaluate investigative journalism, despite the latter’s rejection of
neutrality. In fact, good investigative journalism is clear case of using objective
methods to ferret out the objective truth about what happened behind closed
doors.
In the same vein, objective criteria such as
coherence and self-consciousness are important elements in the construction of
good interpretive journalism in the form of background pieces, analysis, and
column writing. To be sure, the emphasis in this writing will be on
argumentation and theorizing. That does not mean that the objective stance, and
its intellectual virtues and criteria, cannot be a part of the journalism
process. Satirical journalism is probably the form of journalism where the
objective method is weakest. Satirical journalism seeks to state a truth or
expose hypocrisy beneath the rhetoric of modern life and its politics. Often it
does so through exaggeration and unfair portrayals, for dramatic effect. Yet in
an open public sphere, satirical journalism plays an important role. Other
forms of journalism are closer to objectivity in spirit, such as investigative
journalism, as noted above.
Multidimensional objectivity is compatible
with many motivations for doing journalism. Whether journalists want to act as
watchdogs or impartial observers, they should be able to accept the idea of
testing their stories. On this score, multidimensional objectivity is more
attractive than traditional objectivity to advocacy and activist forms of
journalism. There is no in-principle reason why a reporter for the Jewish
Chronicle in Toronto or a gay rights magazine in New York cannot be committed
to the advancement of their group but also committed to stories that satisfy
multidimensional objectivity. A commitment to achieving certain group goals can
weaken one’s commitment to telling the whole truth where facts may damage the
group’s public profile. Putting that danger aside, it is also possible for reporters
in these forms of attached journalism to refuse to distort the facts to suit their
goals, and to seek a degree of multidimensional objectivity in their reports.
How does multidimensional objectivity fit
with new media and its many platforms? The key is multidimensional
objectivity’s flexibility. Different forms of journalism may employ only some
of its criteria, or lay more stress on some criteria than others. Not all forms
of journalism need to enforce all of the criteria of objectivity to the full
extent. It depends on the communicative intent and nature of the medium.
Multidimensional objectivity can be an attractive conception for responsible online
journalism. Practitioners of blogging, writing for websites and citizen journalism
could employ at least some of the criteria of multidimensional objectivity to
test their stories, aligning objectivity with their medium.
The claim of compatibility between
objectivity and online journalism may surprise those who assume that
objectivity is a principle limited to traditional forms of news media. Part of
the problem is the view that journalism objectivity must be as traditionally
conceived – it must insist on strict neutrality and on the elimination of the
“voice” and perspective of journalists. Such demands run counter to the more personal
nature of communication on the Internet. However, if we redefine objectivity as
multidimensional and pragmatic, we see that the objective stance and several of
its major criteria express much of the spirit of online journalism. For
example, take the objective stance as an attitude of approaching stories with a
critical attitude, of being open to where the facts lead, and so on. Such
attitudes support the online value of the Internet as a free “space” to
question stories and events. Or take the criteria of coherence and
self-consciousness. One of the dominant aspects of good online journalism is to
use interactive dialogue and linkages to examine how claims or stories cohere
with what other people around the world know about the topic. Also, online
journalists often see themselves as being self-conscious and critical of the
frames used by mainstream news media on major stories, and to offer alternative
perspectives. These values are central to multidimensional objectivity.
The criteria that test for intersubjective
objectivity are conceptually close to online journalism notions about how
stories are to be tested by online communities. Multidimensional objectivity
agrees with the idea, put forward by many who use the Internet, that the
testing of ideas and stories is best achieved through interactive dialogue, not
the inquiry of individuals. The Internet provides a tool for testing that
includes many more people, and at much greatest ease, than was available to
pre-Internet newsrooms.
It is true that the idea of intersubjective
objectivity in journalism has been understood differently. Traditional
journalists talk about prepublication testing and verification by teams of
professional journalists within newsrooms. Online journalism raises the
possibility of new forms of verification and correction – a postpublication testing
by the many linked readers of a story. In this process, communities of online citizens
collectively monitor postings for bias, manipulation of facts, bogus studies, and
bogus experts. Responsible journalists, online and offline, agree on the
importance of a methodology that tests stories, although their methods may
vary.
What this shows, at the very least, is that
there is no inherent opposition between multidimensional objectivity and new
forms of journalism. In fact, there is an overlap of values that ethicists can
use to develop an ecumenical ethics.
So much for objectivity and ecumenicalism.
However, is multidimensional objectivity compatible with a public-guided ethics,
and a cosmopolitan ethics? There is no incompatibility between objectivity and
including the public in the formulation and monitoring of ethics. The opposite
is true. Given its stress on intersubjective dialogue and testing,
multidimensional objectivity by nature welcomes as many voices into the ethical
discussion as possible. Also, multidimensional objectivity would provide useful
standards to guide public discussions.
Finally, what I said about objectivity and
foreign reporting in an earlier section of this chapter supports the idea that
multidimensional objectivity is well-suited to foreign reporting in a global
age. Traditional objectivity advised journalists not to let their own biases,
or the biases of groups within their own country, distort the accuracy and
fairness of their reports. With a cosmopolitan approach to journalism ethics,
objectivity becomes a global objectivity that asks journalists to not allow their
bias toward their country distort reports on international issues.
Multidimensional objectivity is a stance and
a method that would lead to better coverage of global issues from poverty to
social justice. The objective stance is just the sort of attitude you would
want in global reporters since it asks journalists to put a distance between
them and their beliefs and parochial attachments. Also, the criteria of
coherence, self-consciousness, and intersubjective testing are key values for
cosmopolitan journalism.
The conceptual distance between a concern for
the inclusion of crossborder perspectives in stories and an ethical
cosmopolitanism, with its concern for humanity, is not great. Armed with a
cosmopolitan ethic and a method based on multidimensional objectivity,
journalism would will be less prone to be swayed by narrow forms of
ethnocentricism and xenophobia. Journalists would be less swayed by narrow patriotism
wherever the national interests of their country comes into tension with other
national interests.
It is not implausible, then, to claim that
multidimensionality objectivity can “cross borders” and put itself forward as a
unifying principle for the construction of a multimedia global journalism
ethics.
Conclusion
This chapter has put forward a philosophical
proposal. It proposes that we construct a multimedia global journalism that is
ecumenical, public-guided, and cosmopolitan. The chapter also proposes
multidimensional objectivity as a principle for this new ethics.
I have not provided the content of the new
ethics itself – a detailed list of principles, standards, and norms. Nor have I
“solved” the many ethical issues involving new media. I have provided only a
philosophical outline of how to approach this construction. I offer a way of
thinking about these complex issues, a conceptual scaffolding upon which others
can build.
A new ethics is a work-in-progress.
Therefore, attention to these general philosophical matters is crucial. If we
do not approach these issues in the correct way, or if we start from an
inadequate conceptual base, we will fail to complete the necessary construction.
There will be many false starts and little progress.
Whether my proposal is useful can only be
determined pragmatically in the course of time. It will be judged by its usefulness
for developing a coherent ethical approach and for addressing the questions
that confront journalism ethics today.
The role of the philosopher in times of
confusion and disagreement is to step back and take in the big picture, to
reexamine basic assumptions and explore the options. The philosopher points out
pathways to the future, and plants a few seminal ideas in the hope that they
may eventually take root in public discourse and reflection.
Notes
1 I describe the five revolutions in
“Journalism ethics” (Ward, 2009). The five revolutions are the invention of
ethics with the seventeenth century periodic press, the fourth estate “public”
ethics of the newspapers of the eighteenth century Enlightenment public sphere,
the liberal ethic of the early nineteenth century and the ethics of
professional objectivity in the mass commercial press of late 1800s and early
1900s. Today, the media revolution calls for a mixed journalism ethics.
2 I borrow the phrase, “layered journalism,”
from a lecture given in my ethics class by Prof. Lewis Friedland of the School
of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in
Spring 2009.
3 I take these principles from the
influential code of ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists in the
United States (www.spj.org). I could have chosen, as examples, other principles
in other codes, such as advancing social solidarity, being a catalyst for civic
engagement, and so on.
4 Increasingly, there are attempts to
systematically discuss and codify the practices of online media, through the
creation of associations such as the Media Bloggers Association (www.mediabloggers.org/)
and the Online News Association (http://journalists.org/Default.asp?) and the
development of codes of ethics on sites such as www. cyberjournalist. net/news/000215.php. Some recent discussions
argue that there can be an ethics for “tweeting” by applying to Twitter such
existing journalism standards as fairness, balance and accuracy. See for
example, David Brewer’s discussion at www.mediahelpingmedia.org/content/view/401/1/
(accessed June 23, 2010). This view is too conservative. The construction will
result in a mixed journalism ethics substantially different from existing
journalism ethics. The construction will change (and perhaps eliminate) some basic
principles, and call for new norms of practice.
5 The idea of citizen assemblies has been
used in Canada, the Netherlands, and other countries to explore questions about
politics, forms of government, and so forth. For example, the province of
British Columbia created a citizen assembly to consider new election systems,
such as systems based on proportional representation. On assemblies, see www.auburn.edu/academic/liberal_arts/poli_sci/journal_public_deliberation/citizensassembly/pandemic.htm
(accessed June 23, 2010).
6 For more information on the case, go to the
WNC’s website, www.wanewscouncil.org (accessed June 23, 2010).
7 Claude Adams, pers. comm., February 2003.
References
Black, J., and Barney, R. (eds) (2002) Journal
of Mass Media Ethics: Search for a Global Media Ethic, Special issue, 17
(4).
Brock, G., and Brighouse H. (eds) (2005) The
Political Philosophy of Cosmopolitanism, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Cooper, T., Christians, C., Plude, F. et
al. (eds) (1989) Communication Ethics and Global Change, Longman,
White Plains, NY.
De Beer, A. (ed.) (2004) Global
Journalism: Topical Issues and Media Systems, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA.
Demers, D. (2007) History and Future of
Mass Media: An Integrated Perspective, Hampton Press, Cresskill, NJ.
Friend, C., and Singer, J. (2007) Online
Journalism Ethics: Traditions and Transitions, M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY.
Kant, I. (1997) Groundwork of the
Metaphysics of Morals, (trans. M. Gregor), Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Kovach, B., and Rosenstiel, T. (2007) The
Elements of Journalism, rev. edn., Three Rivers Press, New York.
McPhail, T.L. (2006) Global Communication:
Theories, Stakeholders, and Trends, Blackwell, Malden, MA.
MISA (Media Institute of Southern Africa)
(1991) The Windhoek Declaration, www.misanamibia.org.na/fileadmin/user_upload/docs/Windhoek_Declaration.pdf
(last accessed July 22, 2008).
Nussbaum. M.C. (2006) Frontiers of Justice,
Belknap Press, Cambridge, MA. Seib, P. (2002) The Global Journalist: News
and Conscience in a World of Conflict, Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham,
MD.
Ward, S. J.A. (2004) Objective public
journalism for global media, in Agents of Peace: Public Communication and
Conflict Resolution in an Asian Setting, (eds T. Hanitzsch, M. Loffelholz,
and R. Mustamu), Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, Jakarta, pp. 25–49.
Ward, S. J.A. (2005a) The Invention of
Journalism Ethics: The Long Path to Objectivity and Beyond, McGill-Queen’s
University Press, Montreal.
Ward, S. J.A. (2005b) Journalism ethics from
the public’s point of view. Journalism Studies, 6, (3), 315–330.
Ward, S. J.A. (2005c) Philosophical
foundations for global journalism ethics. Journal of Mass Media Ethics,
20, (1), 3–21.
Ward, S. J.A. (2009) Journalism ethics, in The
Handbook of Journalism Studies (eds K. Wahl- Jorgensen and T. Hanitzsch),
Routledge, New York, pp. 295–309.
Ward, S. J.A. (2010) Global Journalism
Ethics, McGill-Queen’s University Press, Montreal.
Ward, S. J.A., and Wasserman, H. (eds) (2008)
Media Ethics beyond Borders: A Global Perspective, Routledge, New York.
Weaver, D H. (ed.) (1998) The Global
Journalist, Hampton Press, Cresskill, NJ.