And now an ethics question
In conversation with a nonjournalist friend last week, the topic of bias in the newsroom came up. My friend stated that all media is bias in some way and I stoutly defended my profession in its news objectivity.
But then!
I was reading a book by one of my favorite authors, Hunter S. Thompson, and came across a statement* saying that he's not unbiased, and is not pretending to be unbiased in any of his writing.**
And I got to thinking... media are the gatekeepers of information. In deciding what's news and what isn't, we're essentially biased. Our bias is cultivated by those who teach us news judgement. It's a certain preference for stories that fit a criterion we then pass on to our readers.
Then, when we write a story, all the information and words that go into an article are filtered through our minds and onto the page, then through an editor's mind and back to the page. And each reader takes that information with the knowledge of their own experiences, to agree or disagree with the facts as the reporter sees them.
And throughout that whole process I don't think it's possible to be 100% unbiased and objective in reporting.
I will continue to strive toward objectivity as the highest standard, but with the realization that everything I say and do is colored by my own history, memories, and experiences. And I think it would be lying to say that anyone can avoid that.
My next long post will be on bias and objectivity in reporting. Please share your thoughts on the matter.
Do you agree with me? Why or why not? Is it possible to be objective? Do you know any objective journalists? At what point does one's own history hinder one's work?
*When I have the book with me I'll update to the exact words.
**Another great quote I found is: "If I'd written all the truth I knew
for the past ten years, about 600 people - including me - would be
rotting in prison cells from Rio to Seattle today. Absolute truth is a
very rare and dangerous commodity in the context of professional
journalism." -HST