There is hardly any more useless phrase than the frequently proclaimed ideal of objective journalism. While some professionals have bound themselves to the pursuit of objectivity, others dismiss it cynically, branding them as false objective journalists. This is possible because objectivity in this context is used as a synonym for proper journalism. Yet the question is almost never asked: what is objective journalism, really, and do we even need it?
Objectivity, if understood as the possibility of objective knowledge about the world, has been unattainable to philosophers and theorists for millennia, and it certainly remains so for journalists. In its narrow sense, as used in journalism, objectivity refers to a journalist’s effort to report on a topic by impartially selecting high-quality sources of information, excluding their own views, and including numerous and opposing perspectives. This approach stems from the liberal school of thought about the “free marketplace of ideas,” in which the public, through the exchange of opinions, arrives at the best conclusions about a given issue.
In this system, the journalist serves as an arbiter of important information and constructive viewpoints worthy of entering the competition of ideas. Thus, in a morning news program on industrial policy, a journalist might invite guests they assume to be experts on the topic – usually professors, researchers, or someone “from practice.” In doing so, the journalist also sends a message to the audience: I am an objective journalist offering different perspectives on a topic, and I am not inserting my own view.
Despite this widely accepted ideal of journalism – both within the profession and outside it – public trust in journalism is declining globally (especially in Europe and the United States), as well as in Serbia. This is certainly influenced by the repressive nature of regimes and the rise of social media, among other factors, but one of the most common criticisms is the perceived hypocrisy of journalists who, critics say, report in service of particular ideologies and interests rather than according to the proclaimed ideal of objectivity. In addition, creators of informational content online are capturing a large share of the audience of traditional media, often enjoying an even higher level of trust.
Although the level of research and the consultation of multiple sources among these “citizen journalists” varies just as much as it does among traditional journalists, consuming their content feels different. Alongside declining trust, there is also the problem that traditional journalists strive for objective reporting but often lack a clear definition of what objective journalism actually is. Even if a journalist is completely open-minded and allows literally all viewpoints – from moderate to extreme – or even if they manage to choose the most qualified guests (which is very often not the case), to what end are they doing this? Why does a journalist have guests, witnesses, experts?
What purpose do the information and context offered by journalists serve for citizens?
To inform them – why?
To educate them – for what?
If there is no answer to these essential questions, a news writer is not necessarily a journalist.
In order to deserve that title, a journalist must, in principle, understand how and why citizens should and can be informed and educated through the media. To examine this, it is useful to briefly revisit the debate between Walter Lippmann and John Dewey.
In short, Lippmann, an American journalist and political theorist, was known for his skepticism toward the ability of the average citizen to meaningfully contribute to state decisions through their opinions. Constrained by numerous professional and family obligations, as well as by an abundance of diverse information from mass media that varies in relevance, the average citizen is, at best, capable of forming vague and simplified images of the world. These are the bricks, Lippmann argued, from which good decisions for the state are not built.
Dewey, a philosopher and education reformer, believed this view of how individuals learn about the world to be mistaken. On the contrary, human beings are quite capable of forming informed and high-quality views of the world because such views emerge within a community, not through isolated interaction between an individual and information. Within a kind of public sphere that stimulates discussion and opinion formation based on good information, people are capable of contributing to deliberative democracy – provided that certain conditions exist, including, among others, free media.
Liberal Democracy and Journalism
It is clear, however, that Dewey was speaking about democracies with liberal constitutions. Only within such political systems is it possible to speak of journalism as a profession – an activity capable of introducing a wide range of viewpoints and opinions into the public sphere. If a news writer is allowed only to faithfully represent a single worldview, they are not a journalist but an ideological worker.
Since liberal democracy goes hand in hand with capitalism – as its guarantor and protector – the two together contain an inherent contradiction: due to the necessity of profit maximization and unlimited growth, media lean toward cheap journalism that undermines the democratic competencies of the public, which are a prerequisite for the existence of liberal democracy and, consequently, capitalism itself. Such journalism, often referred to as yellow journalism, works against liberal democracy by eroding the public sphere – the space in which citizens should form reasonable political views and then convey them to the state.
While liberal-democratic arrangements enable capitalism, the journalism produced by capitalism degrades the public sphere of that very arrangement.
Yet yellow journalism has one peculiar trait: people trust it. Certainly, it is sensationalist, flashy, and appeals to the most basic human impulses, but it is perceived as sincere. It appears as nothing more than silly, harmless entertainment. On the other hand, serious journalism, which strives to educate and inform, as we have already noted, is experiencing a long-term and thus far unstoppable decline in trust. The secret behind this counterintuitive distribution of trust is the following: both yellow journalism and serious journalism are insincere.
While the former undermines democracy under the pretense that it is merely chasing profit and “giving people what they want to hear/see/read,” the latter supports democracy while pretending that it is not doing so, but is instead being objective. This shared insincerity is largely not apparent.
I believe that most people are inclined to judge journalism they perceive as kitsch and cheap as also being sincere. This helps explain the immense popularity of extremely low-quality television programs and shows in Serbia. Almost anything can become acceptable, but audiences do not want to feel deceived.
Let us now apply this logic in the opposite direction – to journalism that is considered serious and polished. It already appears capable of hiding something – its agenda, sources of funding, and the interests of its owners. Well-groomed journalists with proper accents and nice suits do not project an image with which audiences identify; instead, they seem capable of concealing their intentions.
In this respect, Lippmann was right – people will not thoroughly investigate yellow media or serious media, their journalists, or the sources they use, but they will form stereotypical images of them. This is precisely where online content creators are smarter. They understand that their audience views the world through stereotypes and therefore do not attempt to disguise their relationship with the audience; instead, they openly express their biases (whether genuine or not). This is where the recipe for restoring trust in serious media lies.
Being a journalist
The future of reporting does not lie in objectivity and impartiality, but in radical transparency. Media outlets that wish to operate freely must first be honest with themselves – not standing on a pedestal of objectivity, but instead making a daily contribution to liberal democracy as a precondition for their own freedom. Then, if they wish to earn the trust of the public they seek to inform and educate, they must be honest about their ideology and worldview, without excluding opposing perspectives from their reporting.
Only then will audiences perceive serious journalists as sincere and transparent rather than hypocritical. It is, of course, clear that there are newsrooms and journalists who, through rigorous work, deserve a better perception, but it is also clear that many are trapped in the fiction of their own neutrality. Objectivity in journalism is a flawed ideal that, aside from being unattainable, can be harmful to the trust audiences place in the media.
Would radical transparency turn journalists into ideological workers – to some extent, yes. Can free journalists exist under any other social system – no. In practice, radical transparency would include:
(a) a clearly articulated editorial logic and ideology of the outlet, (b) a precise distinction between reporting on an event and interpreting it, and (c) reasoned explanations of why a chosen guest is relevant to a given topic, rather than relying on the journalist’s fictitious neutrality.
This is not only an honest approach, but the only way for serious journalism to earn greater trust than yellow journalism. A society in which media that inform and educate their audiences are trusted – and thus build democratic competencies – is a society capable of forming informed and coherent political views. An additional benefit of radical media transparency would be the exposure of journalists who do not work in the interest of democracy, as well as the opportunity for citizens to openly debate such a social order.
It should be noted, however, that radical transparency in journalism carries certain risks. For example, by laying bare their worldviews, journalists might appear to contribute to the polarization of the public sphere, and it could also become difficult to distinguish sincere transparency from manipulative transparency. In this regard, the key role would be played by the discernment and democratic competencies of the average news consumer.
On this subject, Winston Churchill famously said that the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. This argument can only be refuted by creating citizens with democratic competencies, and in that task the media can play a decisive role.
The role of journalists who aspire to democracy is to bring complex topics closer to citizens with the help of relevant information and high-quality guests.
That is the value of experts in the public sphere – not when they performatively utter a few superficial sentences on air and sound competent to a layperson (or when, in the loosely defined role of “analyst,” they fail to enhance citizens’ understanding of an issue and instead emphasize the correctness of their personal views). A journalist must understand the difference between these types of guests.
If a journalist, knowingly or not, brings in guests merely “to fill space” and serve as “useful idiots” who create the illusion of discussion and freedom within a controlled public sphere, they are not a journalist – but a polluter.
Author: Mladen Lazarević, communication manager, Institute for Development and Innovation
