Journalism and the Erosion of Objectivity

The fundamental role of a free press in sustaining democracy is undisputed. This is an unquestionable fact. In fact, democracy and the press are Siamese twins, since democracy presupposes the existence of a free press, and the press would not exist without democracy. However, the main media outlets are losing their journalistic objectivity, which is crucial for unbiased, in-depth, and informative coverage.

Certain governments, sectors, and commercial clients of media companies are spared the most in-depth and hard-hitting information in their news reports. This is natural if we consider that the media industry is a business like any other and therefore needs to be managed in a way that generates profit. However, it ceases to be what is expected of professional journalism.

Media professionals need to investigate, interview, research, check data, listen to all parties involved, and write in such a way that the news is conveyed accurately, impartially, and factually. And they must take responsibility for what they publish. These are vital rules for journalism, and without them, the profession cannot survive. This is what is called journalistic objectivity, a kind of utopia in the sector, for which the search is incessant. An ideal to be achieved. This is what differentiates journalists from bloggers, influencers, or all sorts of free activities on social media. Unlike journalists, these individuals write what suits them in a subjective and opinionated manner, and because they do not have the duties and privileges of the journalistic function, they are not accorded the same credibility and legal protection. That is why it has become conventional in the ideal of journalism to adopt the criterion of the pursuit of objectivity as a way of ensuring greater balance and fairness in coverage.

It turns out that this objectivity has been compromised. There are even academic critics and some journalists who argue that objectivity should no longer be a stated goal of journalism, since it cannot be achieved, given the subjective bias of journalists in the preparation of reports. 

In Brazil, one of the country's leading newspapers, Folha de São Paulo, has constantly addressed the issue in articles dated March 18, April 15, 17, and 22. In all these articles, the great danger of "renouncing objectivity" and thus ending "professional journalism," turning journalists into mere activists, is repeated. But the question remains: why the debate about the possible abandonment of objectivity in journalism? Are media companies and journalists surrendering to the pleasures of likes on their reports, acting like bloggers in a frantic rush to social media to convey impulsive feelings, sarcasm, and false moralism?

The time has come for a self-critical review.

A significant portion of the Brazilian press should conduct a thorough self-review. At no point is there any questioning, for example, of what became of the journalistic objectivity of Folha, O Globo, Estadão, Jornal do Brasil, Correio da Manhã, and other major professional media outlets when they supported the Brazilian military dictatorship or covered Operation Car Wash. Instead of journalistic objectivity, there was not only biased reporting but also permissive silence, as analyzed by researcher Álvaro Nunes Larangeira in an article on Permissive Silences: the special sections of Folha de S. Paulo and Jornal do Brasil in the 10th year of the military regime.

There are many contradictions that call into question the way media companies use rules and techniques to circumvent objectivity. It is no surprise that every commercial business has specific interests. The problem is trying to play the game of impartiality, as if not expressly supporting a political party, government, or opposition means that the media company is ideologically neutral. Or even using the version of a supposed "source" to publish biased reports.

Former Washington Post executive editor Martin Baron argues that abandoning objectivity would be a serious failure of journalism and notes with concern a growing rejection of this principle in the press itself. He argues that, "contrary to what its detractors say, objectivity does not mean neutrality, but rather an investigation that is as impartial as humanly possible, the recognition that facts are always complex and that journalists need to be willing to listen and eager to learn in order to overcome limitations and do their job." The former editor adds: "Much attention has been given recently to objectivity in journalism.... I am about to do something tremendously unpopular in my profession today: defend the idea."

Martin Baron goes on to say that if we want other professions, such as doctors, judges, scientists, police officers, and politicians, to act objectively, without preexisting agendas or biases, journalists must also strive for this objectivity. In other words, fair, honest, honorable, accurate, rigorous, impartial, and open-minded reporting based on evidence is the foundation of professional journalism. Society expects journalists to be objective as well. Therefore, ignoring these expectations is an act of arrogance. It shows leniency toward bias and betrays the cause of truth.

Walter Lippman, one of the most influential advocates of journalistic objectivity, published "Liberty and the News" in 1920, in which he stated, even at that time, that "there is everywhere an increasingly furious disillusionment with the press, a growing sense that people are perplexed and feel deceived." He feared an environment in which people "cease to react to truths and react simply to opinions, to what someone says, not to what is actually true." He was concerned with the idea that people "believe what most comfortably corresponds to their preconceived ideas." His diagnosis was very similar to what causes us so much concern today: democratic institutions were under threat. He saw journalism as essential to democracy, but in order for it to fulfill its purpose, it needed standards.

Lippmann recognized that we all have preconceived ideas, but wrote that "we will accomplish more by fighting for the truth than by fighting for our theories." For this reason, he called for "an investigation of the facts that is as impartial as humanly possible." This is where the idea of objectivity came in: an investigation of the facts that is as impartial as humanly possible.

Objectivity is not neutrality. It is not journalism of the "on the one hand this, on the other hand that" variety. It is not false equivalence. It is not giving equal weight to opposing arguments when the vast majority of evidence points in one direction.

The principle of objectivity does not suggest that journalists are free from bias. As Tom Rosenstiel, professor of journalism at the University of Maryland, and former executive editor Bill Kovach wrote in their book "Elements of Journalism," "The term arose from a growing recognition that journalists are full of biases, often unconscious ones." Thus, "objectivity required them to develop a consistent method for testing information, a transparent approach to evidence, precisely so that their personal and cultural biases would not undermine the accuracy of their work." Thus, "it is not the journalist who is objective, but the method, and the key lies in the discipline of the craft."

Journalism should not be the authority, but rather act as the one who reports the facts.

The idea is that journalists should begin their research with an open mind, a willingness to listen, a desire to learn, and a desire to discover what they do not know. This is called reporting.

Dean Baquet, former executive editor of the New York Times, commented in 2021 that "one of the great crises of our profession is the erosion of the primacy of reporting. Certainty is one of the enemies of great reporting."

All these points suggest that journalists should avoid assuming the position of moral authority. They should avoid semi-ready reporting, in which the choice of sources is an exercise in confirming bias and when they seek to hear the other side (often at the last minute) only because it is required, not as an essential ingredient of honest investigative work. This should sound familiar to many people who have lived through the political events and criminal investigations of recent years in Brazil. It is the reason why journalistic objectivity is essential.

And to conclude, I return to the words of former editor Martin Baron: “We have failed often, embarrassingly and gravely. In many cases, we have done wrong through errors of action and errors of omission. Because of haste and neglect, because of prejudice and arrogance. We can and must have a vigorous discussion about how democracy and the press can better serve the public. However, the answer to our failures as a society and as a professional category is not to renounce our principles and standards. There is too much of that happening today. The answer lies in reaffirming the principles of objectivity in journalism.” So, I will end here by saying that society and democracy would benefit greatly if journalism were more humble and less arrogant.