The death of objective journalism?

The New York Times ran an article about Lou Dobbs, an anchor on otherwise subdued CNN (which cut the debate show Crossfire, because its viewers want facts and not opinions), who expresses his opinions in no uncertain terms. Slate points to Anderson Cooper whose ratings rose after he gave Louisiana senator Mary Landrieu a tongue-lashing for not doing enough after Hurricane Katrina. And Robert Fisk, British journalist and author, said in a talk at Columbia last year that journalists would be better off shedding the veneer of objectivity, and pointed out that papers on the other side of the Atlantic are already adopting this approach, successfully.

The American media has come under much criticism for being too credulous of the current White House and for leaving holes in the reporting of several issues related to this administration. The argument is that the majority of the media didn't look hard enough, didn't examine the statements made by the government closely enough, because doing so would have made them seem opposed to the administration, instead of passive observers. All too often, journalists do hide behind the excuse of objectivity to avoid hard-hitting journalism.

In the Columbia Journalism Review, Brent Cunningham argues that "objectivity" leads journalists to become passive recipients of news, rather than active analysers. For example, he writes, when Bush announced divident tax cuts, because he said people shouldn't be taxed on the same income twice, most of the media covered the story, but reported pretty much just what he said. Very few actually went deeper to find that there are several other taxes that could also apply to the same income, and actually questioned why he was proposing cuts only on dividend taxes and not on other taxes.

Cunningham points out that, often, editorials are much better researched because the editorial writer has to know and understand the subject well to be able for form an opinion. Thus, if this need for objectivity didn't exist, then journalists would be forced to examine the issues they write about in greater depth, and thus raise more potent questions. http://www.cjr.org/issues/2003/4/objective-cunningham.asp

I think the answer to this problem lies in the approach a journalist takes. When starting out, and when reporting a story, the reporter should approach it with no bias, with no preconceived notions. They must ensure that every angle is covered, and every side has a say. Then, when they are fully educated about the subject and understand it clearly, and begin the writing process, the opinion - well-researched and educated - can come in.

Particularly with the onslaught of blogs and other non-traditional media, news media do need to change the way they operate to compete effectively. These new forms of communication are changing the way people view and receive news, and makes them more receptive to opinions in their news. In fact, I think the way mainstream media can compete with bloggers and other sources today is to use their vast resources and already-established credibility (which relatively few blogs still have) to offer well-researched stories that do offer some well-informed opinion. But they also need to beware of leaning too far to the other side, and become vehicles of rants for or against an issue.