Objectivity is Dead, Long Live Objectivity

Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines “objectivity” as a terrible way to start an opinion column. But still, this is how Martin Baron begins the third paragraph in his Washington Post column. This piece was directly referenced by Toronto Star columnist Andrew Phillips in his March 28 article “Journalistic objectivity is an ideal worth defending.”

When originally coming across this, I was poised to use it as an opportunity to dissect the Toronto Star’s touting the sacred journalistic practice of “objectivity.” However, the Star column mostly serves as a “This ^^^^” reaction gif to the Washington Post’s original article. So the focus will be on Baron’s piece, since that’s where the bulk of this argument comes from. We’ll return to the Toronto Star later.

“If you care about journalism, if you consume journalism, and especially — especially — if you are a journalist, then do yourself a favour: look up an article in the Washington Post by Martin Baron on the importance of objectivity in journalism and give it a good read.” -Andrew Phillips

Long Live Objectivity

Baron’s piece begins on the wrong foot, as he preemptively throws up his hands and says he’s going to get flack for his “unpopular” opinion. There’s no quicker way to nail yourself to the cross than vaguely gesture towards the concept of an angry mob that may or may not exist.

As mentioned before, he then cites the dictionary definition, in a writing trope that’s been mocked for the last 20 years or so. The crux of his argument comes soon after, when Baron states that we, as a society, want institutions to operate under objectivity. This includes the medical field, law enforcement, business, science, government regulators etc. Then Baron concedes the point that “objectivity is not always achieved.”

This is odd. It can be concretely said that these institutions do not operate under systemic objectivity, despite hoping to operate under the principle. Black men receive harsher penalties for crimes than their white counterparts. Medical racism has been the norm for the history of the USA. I could go on, but Baron attempts to circumvent this by stating that “failure to achieve standards does not obviate the need for them.”

But what’s left unquestioned is the claim that these institutions are assumed to work under the goal of objectivity. Baron doesn’t question why these standards are not achieved. What is meant by failure? Is it a failure to restructure society to minimize these outcomes? If it were, then one would need a structural analysis to discover why these issues persist. Capitalism and its effects would need careful evaluation. Baron chooses instead to attribute these root causes to broad “failures” which receive little examination.

The problem, he notes, is that we just aren’t objective-ing hard enough. In terms of the standards of objectivity and failures to achieve it, he writes “It makes them more necessary. And it requires that we apply them more consistently and enforce them more firmly.”

Arguing with Shadow Puppets

Baron writes that these objectivity critics, “encouraged and enabled by many in the academic world,” are convinced that objectivity itself is the root of the problem.

Before your eyes roll out of your skull, it should be made clear that journalists who criticize the concept of objectivity do not believe that objectivity itself is the root of any problem. The issue, rather, is that institutions and news organizations have touted themselves as objective, when this is not the case. Baron himself admits this shortly after.

Anyway, here are the three criticisms that Baron lays out from his opponents. First, being truly objective is not possible for any human or organization of humans, and this must be acknowledged. Second, objectivity is not attainable, and he characterizes the conclusion of this being: “let’s not pretend we’re practicing it and let’s not even try” (???). Finally, objectivity means “false balance.” Finding the middle between two points to appear balanced, even when one or both of these points is erroneous. These three critiques hold water. Though the addition of “let’s not even try” to point two is puzzling and not the norm across critiques of objectivity.

Then he divulges into a history of “objectivity” as a concept in news. The bulk of which need not be disseminated here, except two points. Baron writes Walter Lippman, the originator of the concept in the mainstream, in his definition of objectivity. Lippman called for an “impartial an investigation of the facts as is humanly possible.” Baron repeats this as his definition of objectivity. The second point he notes is that Lippman “participated in the propaganda machine of the Woodrow Wilson administration.” So we’re supposed to take the journalistic concept of objectivity seriously from a man who explicitly benefited from creating propaganda? Am I reading this correctly?

Evidently I am, because Baron scolds critics of objectivity as creating a “straw man” that can be torn down.

It’s at this point it appears Baron is arguing with a shadow puppet. Nothing he said so far is in contradiction to the critiques of objectivity that were laid out earlier.

The idea is to be open-minded when we begin our research and to do that work as conscientiously as possible. It demands a willingness to listen, an eagerness to learn — and an awareness that there is much for us to know.

Baron continues to bravely stand up for statements that “suggest we avoid self-appointment as moral authorities", and “argue against a madcap rush to social media soapboxes with spur-of-the-moment feelings or irrepressible snark and virtue signaling.” These voices he’s cited are arguments “against stories that are precooked before a lick of research is conducted.” They’re arguments “for acknowledging our limitations.”

Where are the critics of objectivity promoting these things? Where has this been debated? Is anyone actually saying a full investigation of all available facts and verification of statements is bad? Additionally, what has Baron said that actually combats against the critiques mentioned earlier? How does full investigation of the facts contradict “no one can be truly objective?”

Who’s creating the straw man now?

This rousing speech hits the penultimate paragraph with a tear-stained ode to the missteps of the news media. “But our failures were not ones of principle. They were failures to live up to principle.”

Objectivity cannot fail, it can only be failed.

It’s at this point that I ask: Is that not the main problem of operating under objectivity as a concept? That it justifies faulty systemic approaches as “failures” in a larger, more altruistic, goal?

This entire argument rests on the assumption that news outlets attempt to achieve a high standard of truth, with all the facts considered. If they operate under this framework, and fail, it’s understandable in Baron’s view, as we all make mistakes. But what if they don’t attempt to do this?

It’s at this point I will remind you this article was cited heavily in the Toronto Star.

Objectivity Is Dead

Early morning on April 5, Israeli Occupation Forces fired stun grenades in the Al-Aqsa Mosque, and began beating Palestinian worshippers. This was a raid of a Muslim holy site in the middle of Ramadan. Al Jazeera reported the experiences of people who were attacked. Here’s a small sample from someone who was there.

They attacked the people, beating them on the head with sticks … people fainted, people suffocated, people were bleeding. Then they started arresting us. Huge numbers of people were taken. They kept swearing at us the whole time, pushing us onto buses that took us to the police station in Atarot where we were made to lie on the floor with our hands cuffed behind us.

The Toronto Star described this attack as “fighting.” The Israeli police were “firing stun grenades at Palestinians who hurled stones and firecrackers in a burst of violence…” Meanwhile, “Palestinian militant groups” warned of a further confrontation.

DW News said “clashes” broke out. The New York Times described the raid as “unrest,” initiated by Israeli police only “after Palestinians barricaded themselves inside a mosque there.” The Washington Post’s headline about the raid ends with “Palestinians say.” The piece stated “officers forced their way” true, but then goes on to describe it as a “night of violence.” Other attacks are “overnight clashes” between the Israeli police and Palestinian “civilians.”

This instance of language usage doesn’t reveal a failure to me, it reads as intentional. Where is this “objective” process touted by Baron and praised by Phillips? Al Jazeera said Israeli forces “attack” worshippers. What’s to stop the Toronto Star or The Washington Post from using the same language? An honest mistake?

The reporting surrounding this particular event is indicative of the larger truth that Baron, and by extension Phillips, sidestep. The narrative of failure assumes that the goals of reporting with an in-depth “objectivity” haven’t been reached, but not for lack of trying.

It only takes an analysis of politically charged events like Israel’s expression of apartheid against Palestinians to show that objectivity is not the goal, merely the excuse.