~Z- Objectivity Al Morrison What's My Angle? As journalists prepare to report on an assignment —be it a major accident, & new government initiative, a iocal authority meeting, a company announcement, a sports match or whatever = they will all be asking themselves similar questions. Whae is the most imporeant thing? Whee is new? What do people need to know? What is my angle? ‘Typically, the radio journalist will have 40 seconds to tell the sory and will be thinking around the best piece of audio, The television journalist will be thinking pictures and around a minute for the story. ‘The newspaper journalist will be thinking around 15 to 20 paragraphs, and looking fora fresh approach co the story in the knowledge that readers may well fave already heard the “first hit” on radio and television, None of the journalists can hope to da justice to the story if justice means a complete and accurace account of alt hac happened. They will boil down what ison offer, strip it of superfluous facts and observations discard large segments jn a rigorous and ruthless process of priorisy. setting, and finally settle on a highly concentrated morsel. . “Those who are not used to being the subject of news media attention will often be surprised at what the journalists “pick out” and what they ignore. They may complain that cheir part in the story is out of context, and that in stripping it of any qualification and removing it from ite wider context, the reporter has distorted the situation. Ie may lead to 56 Objectivity arguments over privacy issues, faitness, accuracy, balance, sensationalism, trivialisation, intrusion and ethical behaviour. ‘This chaprer examines some of the judgements that go into the news and its presentation. Ir traces the development of the concepr and practice of objectivity, then discusses some of its shortcomings before considering an alternative approach to the exercise of news judgement and selection. How are Journalists to Respond? Journalists are conduits, They stand between significant information and che public's awareness of iz. What they report and che way they report it has an impact on public knowledge and perceptions. ‘They are self-appointed asbiters af whar people get to know abauc through the ‘mass media, and the way that information is couched. They claim to be trained and experienced in distilling “the news of the day”. They are in command and control ofa process that plays part in shaping public life. “They are in a position of power because they have an outler; a newspaper, radio or television station to create and disseminate the news. Inside the news media organisations there are layers of people playing their roles in che decision-making processes thae go in to canstructing the day’s newspaper, the hourly radio bulletins and the television news. Even before a journalist arrives at sn assignment, decisions have been made by others. Editors and chief reporters make judgements about which, of the potential assignments thar day, are the most important or newsworthy, They make priotity calls as they juggle the number of journalists available at the time, deadline pressures and assignments. The number of abandoned assignments typically far exceeds chose eventually covered, not all those covered make che news, and obviously, buc significantly, all che potentially newsworehy things that the editors and chief reporters do noc know abour never get reported. Once a decision has been made to use a story, there ate filters. How will the story be used: front page or inside, big headline ur small, bold type or normal, a photo or not, a box around the story to highlight it or a promo to advertise the news coming up and so on? A story that is highly regarded at one moment can be dropped because a better one suddenly ‘comes up. Sometimes a story makes the front because it has a human interest element that can be highlighted to lighten an otherwise heavy news mix. Deadline pressures affect the selections made. ST58 What's News? Partial Journalism Most ofthe decisions are made for good professional or practical reasons. But experienced journalists know of cases where people in authority have ordered that a particular story is un for personal, political or business reasons. Conversely, a story reflecting poorly on the news media’s own organisation (such as an industrial dispute) is not run. Stories may be judged newsworthy because they please an important advertiser, or curry favour with a valuable news source. Sometimes the owner exercises editorial prerogative. In December 2001 CanWest Global Communications bought 136 newspapers, including 14 major big-city dailies. CanWest issued an order that they would all have to run the same editorial each week, written at che ‘company's national headquarters in Winnipeg, and that any locally written editorials must not contravene those views. Journalists complained chat the policy eroded freedom of expression, and that it flowed beyond editorials to affect columnists and reporters as well (Brown, 2002). But journalists also bloc their own copybooks. During the Enron scandal (in which the US energy trading giant’s directors hid huge losses and sold their own shares before the company collapsed while assuring their employees that the shareholding they held in their pension fund was sound and sccure), it was revealed that several influential journalists and commentators who wrote on the issue were on the Enron payroll. ‘They received between $50,000 and $100,000 a year for serving on an “advisory board” where their only duties were to contribute to. briefing, a session twice a year on international events (Borger, 2002). Such patently unacceptable practices, along with documented cases of lying, plagiarism, cheque-book journalism or corruption that surface to discredie the news media, create public mistrust and raise the issue of how widespread such practices are. It is not just that these are clear breaches of standards that citizens have a right to expect from news media owners and journalists. They also serve to question just how far such practices affect the selection and shaping of the news, and demand that owners and journalists give an honest account of their activity so thac readers, listeners and viewers have a realistic sense of what they can expect. Such a view must acknowledge that journalists are constantly applying their judgement in making the decisions that determine and shape what is presented as che news of the day. The issue should not be whether Objectivity journalists make judgements, but rather how they make them, and on what basis. Having to explain the basis for judgements can be uncomfortable. It forces journalists to confront their prejudices, biases, views and personal interests, their inevitably limited view and experience of the ethnic, cultural and socioeconomic mix of the community in the area they report, and the social and institutional forces that have shaped their own values. It forces news media organisations co confront their institutional, corporate and commercial interests. And further, it demands that journalists come up with a credible modus operandi, a methodology based on sound theory and ethics. Objectivity One such methodology is called objectivity. Objectivity holds that there is a truth, a reality, a set of facts that journalists can pass on without their perceptions, feelings or opinions colouring their reports. Journalists become, in a sense, neutered civic scribes; disinterested, dispassionate observers totally unaffected by their own or anybody else’s views. It is an appealing theory because it does not involve making any judgements, ‘and the journalist who makes no judgements avoids being judged. When journalists admit to a subjective process they are dury bound ro account for it. Objectivists avoid accountability by denying they make judgements. ‘The convenience and simplicity of the position makes it hardly surprising that objectivity has grown to become an article of faith amongst journalists. It makes life easy. ‘Objectivity emphasises qualities and values that reassure readers, listeners and viewers that the journalists are not using their privileged position to push their own agendas and views. Objective journalists have no axe to grind, no personal interest or active involvement in the issue at hand. Their reports are fair, even-handed and balanced. They give ‘equal accounts of both or all sides of the story without trying to determine whether any one view is more truthful, accurate or valid than another. ‘They stick to the facts. They report the truth. ‘Advocates of objective journalism are not blind co their imperfect results in achieving such standards, but argue their failures do not mean those standards should necessarily be changed or lowered. The objective journalist insists that while the standards may be impossible to reach, they are something to aspire to. The problem is that somethingiis either 5960 What's News? objective, or itis not. As soon as the standards are breached, journalists cease to be objective, and to a lesser or greater degree their reports arc tainted by subjective decisions. Other problems arise for the objectivist. The notion of the journalist asa dispassionate observer and reporter can be a chillingly dehumanising concept. Washington Past photo-journalist Matthew Campbell recounts: Icis one thing to see dead people, another to watch chem being killed. A decade ago in Liberia I watched and did nothing, The man knew he was going to be shor and his eyes were bulging with terror a he begged for mercy. The image of his body on the road with smoke billowing from a hole in the chest is branded on my soul: should @ journalist have tried to reason with executioners instead of taking a photograph and looking away? ‘Supposedly I [Link] impartial observes, there to chronicle events, ‘not to play a role in them. Yer just by watching I had become, in some ways, a participant. | never wanced co confront that dilemma again, and did nor expect to, even in Afghanistan. Ichappened, though, in the northern city of Maaar-i-Sharif ... 1 saw a... badly wounded survivor being cartied on a stretcher. An old ‘man emerged from a building screaming abuse ar the wounded Arab, He picked up a large rock. The guards had not seen me watching. ‘They put down che stretcher to make it easier for the old man as he raised the rock above his head preparing to bring it down on the Arab's skull. In another second it would have been done. I rushed towards them, shouting ‘No’, for want of anything better, ‘They all looked round. One of the guards hastily wrestled the rock from the old man’s hand. The Arab groaned, his eyes wide with fear ... (Campbell, 2002, p.C2). ‘The objectivist is forced to conclude that Campbell made the wrong call; he should have let events take their course, recording chem with his camera and notepad. To do otherwise is to abandon the concept of objectivity and admit that journalists are active participants in the world they report. “That does not discount many of the objectivist’s aims. What it does dois suggest their ideals arc not the exclusive territory of objectivists. It docs not necessarily follow that chose who believe journalism involves subjective judgements must argue in favour of allowing personal values, prejudices, biases or interests Co colour their reports. What the Objectivity subjectivist must do is acknowledge the judgement process and account for it in any methodology of journalism. History of the Concept of Objectivity The notion of objectivity isa very recent one in the history of news and journalism, and ic is instructive to trace its development. In the 1600s the English were the first to employ editors to sort and organise information into the gazettes of the day, and negotiate their way through the repressive licensing and media laws of Oliver Cromwell and subsequently King Charles 11. Editors who criticised the authorities invited jail terms. Imposed systems of judgement affected the news. ‘The French kings, too, imposed a press licensing system and strict boundaries as to what could be reported and what could not. In addi to sanctions, Louis XVI favoured loyal journalists, creating a pool of disenchanted journalists who were excluded from privileged access to news events. Stephens (1988) records that the July 17, 1789 edition of the Gazette de France, a paper that enjoyed the King’s favour, reported on «fire in Paris, various news from European capitals, and the fact that the king had been presented with a book at Versailles, but carried no mention atall of the storming of the Bastille three days previously. Disenchanted journalists resorted to underground newsletters, which fermented the French Revolution. Anyone tempted to dismiss this story as of distant and historic interest need only revisit New Zealand’s 1951 waterfront lockout where the government effectively forced newspaper editors to publish the officially sanctioned view and censor reports from the watersiders themselves. The watersiders then reverted to illegal news- sheets to get their story out to the public. In America, Thomas Jefferson preached the virtues of a free press. ‘The press was free to be partisan, and it was, particularly about the civil ‘war. But the second president, John Adams, reverted to press restrictions and laws backed by hefty fines and terms in jail. His controversial Sedition ‘Act became a political issue and when Jefferson became the next president, he dumped it. Crusading journalism continued after the Civil ‘War, centering on issues such as slavery and tax laws. These were not issues that destabilised the structure of government, and a culture of press freedom thrived in the United States. In Britain, however, the issue was the right of the working class to 662 What's News? vote and be represented in Parliament, Again, harsh press restrictions bolstered by a tax system of stamp duties led to the rise of illegal papers, and these did seek co destabilise the government structures. Between 1830 and 1836 some 800 publishers were thrown in jail and their presses impounded, but eventually the persistence of the journalists pumping out illegal papers prevailed and the legislators pulled back. In New Zealand, to9, political motivation played a large role in the development of the news media. Day (1990) argues thae in the early years of the colony, partisan political advocacy was regarded as normal and proper by newspaper owners seeking political office. Julius Vogel, for example, founded the Ozago Daily Times, and as his political fortunes required him to shift to new constituencies to remain in office, he variously became the proprietor of the Southern Crass and the Weekly News in Auckland and then the New Zealand Times in Wellingtoi ‘The early papers were the only outlet for pol the first colonists did not have self-government. The politics of many of the papers surrounded the battle for self-government. When the case was won, and after the first elections took place in 1853, they shifted their attention to advocating for political parties, issues and viewpoints. In 1907, the Dominion was launched by a group of Wellington businessmen and farmers from the region. Their motive was to use the paper to topple the ruling Liberal Party and counter the influence of the New Zealand Times, which promoted the Liberals. Objectivity was clearly not in the minds of the Dominion’s founders. Nor was it evident in the rise of radio. Conservative governments ‘were wary of the new media, which they did not control, and regulated the industry to prevent it broadcasting “propaganda of 2 controversial nature” (Day, 1994, p. 91). Regulations effectively banned the Radio Broadcasting Company from news and current affairs. With the election of the first Labour Government, Prime Minister Michael Joseph Savage collared the new media and promoted “fire-side chats” to the public to serve his own ends. Savage broadcast Parliament in an attempt to counter newspaper reports; “By means of broadcasting the people are getting the truth right from Parliament; the pure, unadulterated truth”, Savage declared (Day, 1994, p. 213). At first it was a selective truth, wich Parliament broadcast at any time on the Prime Minister's instructions Eventually, though, the entire proceedings were broadcast, as they continue to be today. But in the meantime technological developments, particularly in Objectivity America, were changing journalism and spelling the end for newspapers as political pulpits. The development of paper from wood pulp rather than rags meant it was no longer scarce. And the revolution from manual to mechanical printing, and then faster printing presses and typesetting machines vastly increased the daily print run. By the 1830s, mass circulation papers were being produced. The increasingly literate society expanded the potential readership, and the flood of papers in turn fed the level of literacy and appetite for mass-produced news. Competition saw the price drop from around sixpence and the introduction of the “penny press”, increasingly paid for from advertising. The news media became a highly commercial business, and in chat climate narrow political advocacy and partiality reduced the potential circulation and hence advertising appeal. Profitability rather than politics became the driving force. Many papers even made a virtue of declaring their political independence in order not to alienate potential readers. This did not mean the end of crusading journalism, but the causes became domestic issues that affected the readership. ‘The early newspaper barons took different tacks in the competition for circulation. In the United States, for example, Joseph Pulitzer emphasised respect for truth and accuracy (despite fiercely advocating causes), while his arch-rival William Randolph Hearst went for over- dramatised beatups that gave rise to the term “yellow journalism” (named after a cartoon character from the Hearst papers). Tabloids emerged for the convenience of commuters, and developed their own styles. Appealing to the working-class readers who relied on public transport, they went for more sensational stories that gave rise to the term “gutter journalism”. The different styles created debate about journalism, and owners fiercely criticised each other. Other factors had a marked effect on journalistic style. The invention of the telegraph allowed journalists to report from far afield. But the unreliability of the early service, and the need to keep transmissions short for sake of time, meant journalists had to transmit the bare essentials; the facts. Narrative and opinion had to follow more slowly by postage, which in effect forced journalists to separate news and comment. ‘The rise of the wire service agencies that collected and sold news to a variety of publications also counted against partisan journalism. It was not lost on those who owned and operated the agencies, that stories free of partisan views and restricted to facts were marketable to newspapers, of all persuasions. Biased reporting was bad for business. esWhat's News? The Rise of Career Journalism Accompanying all these developments was the rise of journalism as a paid career. Reporters relied more on first-hand observation than second- hand sources. They developed techniques co manufacture news: interviewing, making independent investigations, developing networks of contacts and key sources, and perfecting techniques to extract information under difficult cireumstances. ‘The journalists did not necessarily share the political views and advocacy of their owners, and developed loyalties to their sources and reading public rather than the publishers. They had no direct vested interest in shaping the news to the proficability of the newspaper, and they were at arm’s length from the advertisers. ‘There was a natural tension between the owners, who held political views, and the journalists, who reported them. The best way for journalists to avoid conflict with the owners was to report only facts, impartially and with no reference to the first person. As Stephens (1988) says: "News increasingly was seen as an independent substance, composed of facts; opinion as something else entirely, something slightly disreputable ~ safe only when segregated in editorials or caged in {quotation marks .... Narrators were no longer omniscient; but the facts reporters gathered were treated as omnipotent. For those new defenders of the fact, partisanship was merely an impediment to the free and clear movement of information (p.258).. Journalists developed their craft largely in the environment of a free press, for the most part constrained only by relatively reasonable press laws. The newspaper owners were focused on profit. Those in power who had once enjoyed direct influence over the news media through laws, regulations or ownership, were forced to develop new and subtle ‘ways to influence journalists to maintain their influence. By the 1900s, politicians and commercial enterprises were hiring public relations people as a matter of course to manage their affairs and ensure their views were well represented. Leaked information, favours, scoops and special relationships all served as subtle ways to influence reporters. In an attempt to be independent from that, journalists began developing codes of ethics and conduct. In 1923 the American Society ‘of Newspaper Editors developed a canon for journalism that included a requirement that news reports be free from opinion or bias of any kind. Objectivity 65 It referred to the principles of sincerity, truthfulness, accuracy and impartiality. Michael Schudson (2001) believes sociological developments, such as journalism developing its own culture, to be more important than technological or commercial factors. He states: Analytical fairness had no secure place until journalists as an ‘occupational group developed loyalties more ro cheir audiences and to themselves asan occupational community than to cheir publishers or their publishers’ favoured political parties .... Objectivity seemed a natural and progressive ideology for an aspiring occupational group at a moment when science was god, efficiency was cherished, and increasingly prominent élites judged partisanship a vestige of the tribal 19th Century (pp.161-162). Objectivity also fitted well with the realism movement of the day. The journalists’ commitment to reporting the world ‘as ic is’ aligned with that thinking. They developed the notion of ‘hard’ facts, which they saw as existing as discrete objects that could be reported without any perceptions or judgements from the journalists to slant, shape or colour their reports. They packaged their ‘who, what, where’ reports into a prescribed formula that became known as the inverted pyramid, where the most important fact came first and other facts followed in descending order of importance. It became accepted practice to cut a story from the bottom up to make it fit into the available space. What remained after everybody's sifting through was deemed to be objective. The Rules of Objectivity Stephens (1988) outlines a set of rules that emerged to give the objectivists comfort and some sort of methodology. Personal prejudices were not to be reflected in stories. Value-laden words such as ‘foolish’ and ‘short-sighted’ were to be avoided. Opinions had to be sourced; the reporter could not say ‘the councillors were shocked at the suggestion’ but instead had to find a source and report ‘the mayor says the councillors were shocked at the suggestion’. Balance and fairness, typically expressed through countering one view with an opposing one, became an essential ingredient. And all of this was underpinned by the supremacy of sticking to verifiable, undeniable facts.What's News? ‘The rules have much to recommend them, disciplining journalists to report the world the way it is rather than construct the world che way they think it is, or would like it to be. But they are not without their problems. How, for instance, can anyone possibly know that ajournalist’s personal biases or prejudices or views are not reflected in a story if they remain undeclared? And are we to assume that journalists are a special class of individual with such extraordinary self-awareness that they are conscious of al their personal biases? What is the methodology that allows the objective journalist to be confident the story remains unaffected by theie views? Does anybody believe that room full of journalists claiming to be objective would repore the same story in precisely the same way? Objectivity demands that it be so. The pursuit of objectivity demands that all the accounts would at least be very similar. But surely the newspaper journalist whose report will not be public until the next morning should be raking “a new angle” in the certain knowledge that the obvious story will be well told by then through the broadcast media? ‘The prohibition on value-laden terms is an obstacle to the objectivist’s aim of reflecting the world the way it is. Society readily distinguishes between a cold-blooded murder and a crime of passion; afreedom-fighter and a terrorist; an ineffective politician and an effective one, an irresponsible driver and a careful one .... Value judgements are part of our world. Stories that are stripped of them fail to reflect the world as it is. The objectivist’s way around that is to source the value judgement to someone else. “The Prime Minister says her Minister of Home Affairs is ineffective and will be replaced’; ‘the judge told the defendant he was a violent rapist who could not be safely left in the community’. That certainly lends authority and credibility to a report and is worth more than the journalist's own value judgement. But there are many situations where journalists cannot source value judgements that need to be made in order to reflect faithfully what is happening (‘the protest has turned ugly’, x gave a spirited speech that clearly impressed the party faithful’). ‘The pursuit of objectivity leads to dishonest practices, such as finding, someone who will say what the journalist thinks; putting the journelist’s ‘words into someone else's mouth. Journalists have a number of compliant sources on various topics to call on when they need to “rent a quote”. Surely the honest and sensible thing to do is apply the value judgement and be prepared to defend it with evidence. ‘And what of fairness and balance? The problem for the objectivist is, two-fold. First, the world is not necessarily fair and balanced. Take the Objectivity New Zealand political situation, Under the old two-party system balance and fairness in reporting an issue was simply achieved with two voices. But what does balance and faimess mean with several parties represented in Parliament? Should the views of all parties be reported on all issues, and if so, should they be reported with equal space or time, or proportionate ro the number of seats they have in Parliament? If one party comes up with a unique new policy, does balance and fairness require that the journalist get countervailing comment from a party that, has given the issue no thought at all? Does the result reflect an objective view of what exists, or a world manufactured by the reporter? Bur it is in the area of reporting facts chat journalists make their most frequent and obvious judgements. The selection of facts to use and those to discard, and the ordering of facts and their juxtaposition, requires the journalist to make subjective judgements. And the result can itself create a value judgement. Take this headline: ‘$375,000 city State house rents for $77 a week’ (Scanlon, 2002). The headline contains only verifiable, hard facts, and yet the way they are put together creates, a value judgement. The journalist is not simply telling us two unrelated facts; the value of the house and the rent charged. The news lies in the implicit judgement that in the journalist’s view the rent is too low. And if there is any doubt, the opening paragraph confirms that: ‘Wellington's most expensive state house is worth $375,000, but its tenants pay just $77 aweek in rent’. The word ‘just’ forms the judgement. The reporter clearly disapproves, and the headline writer agrees. Facts do not sit in a vacuum. Reporters use facts selectively and with deliberate intent. They do not order them sequentially, and they discard most of them. That is a journalist's job, but it is not an exercise in objectivity. Separating the wheat from the chaff isa skilled and necessary job. Ic involves “news judgement”, developing a nose for a good story, and the skills to pursue ir. It would be easy to dismiss the debate between objectivists and subjectivists as of little practical substance. Good journalism in both schools encompasses many of the same principles and advocates from both schools are likely to produce very similar reports. So why bother about the issue? Some conclude that because subjective personal value judgements are so hard to discount, the honest thing to do is not try, be up-front about that and leave the readers, listeners and viewers to react tostories as informed and sceptical consumers. The most extreme version of that thinking is “new journalism”, where no attempt is made to o768 What's News? separate fact, opinion and fiction. By contrast, advocacy journalism does value the neutrality of the journalist, notwithstanding the judgements that lie behind isolating the subject matter to be advocated. Likewise, investigative reporting is underpinned by a degree of radicalism, where the journalist makes a judgement about what needs investigating, but then tries to be detached. ‘The Center for Investigative Reporting in the United States emphasises the importance of investigative journalists avoiding embarking on missions but acknowledges: ‘Underlying the work is the belief chat things are rarely as they seem, and seldom as they should be. ‘The radicalism often associated with the reporting stems from the perpetual search for root causes of events, and from a low tolerance of injustice’ (Weir & Noyes, 1983, p.1). Interpretive journalism arose in the 1930s amongst journalists who believed that their readers needed to be told not only who, what and where, but why; journalists who believed they had a responsibility not only to report, but also to explain. Jay Rosen, associate professor of journalism at New York University, is a leading exponent of a recent movement called public, or civic, journalism (the movement led to the establishment of the Pew Center for Civic Journalism in Washington, financed by trust money to promote the concept). Again it picks up the principles of che disinterested journalist, but insists that the news media is an active participant in the community and should acknowledge its influence and use it for the public good by involving the citizenry actively and directly in news media coverage. Rosen (1999) is critical of the journalist as the professional bystander, placing the news media outside the action. ‘Objectivity permits journalists to speak of “informing the public” without worrying about how a public gets formed in the first place’ (p.69). Rosen argues that objective journalism oversimplifies reality, ignoring the fact that while there may be only one object, there are many ‘objective’ views of it. All of these approaches have something to offer in the debate over the function of journalism and the news media in society. There is more common ground in the various approaches than passionate advocates might concede. The core point of departure for those who promote objectivity is the insistence that journalists, in che course of their work, should clear their minds of any viewpoints, avoid making any judgements, and simply report the world the way itis. Extreme objectivists go further and say they should do the same in their personal lives, by not voting, Objectivity not getting involved in any community groups, and not forming a view on controversial issues. Iisa sterile view chat in practice is generally applied only to “hard news”. Sports reporters, for example, are not expected to be objective. Even in “hard news” there is insticutional inconsistency. It is standard practice, for instance, in crime stories to drop honorifics from someone charged with an offence. Mr or Mrs Citizen becomes Citizen the minute he or she is charged. The news media has made its own value judgement that Citizen is unworthy, and they strip the individual of the status accorded innocent people even before trial. If found guilty, he individual remains Citizen. If acquitted, Citizen becomes Mr or Mrs Citizen again. Objectivists apply double standards. For example, i is generally seen as unacceptable for a political reporter to belong to a political party but acceptable, even an advantage, for a religious reporter to belong to a particular church. Business journaliscs should not trade in shares when reporting on the company involved, but education journalists can report (on schools that their children attend. But a theory should not be abandoned simply because it is hard co apply in practice. A process is not necessarily flawed simply because the product is imperfect. If objectivity is the ideal, then pursuing objectivity is the best practice. The core problem with objectivity is that it draws journalists into a false view of themselves, their function, and the world around chem, and therefore leads them to dupe their readers, listeners and viewers. This is not necessarily a conscious or deliberate thing. Conclusion ‘The practical application of the theory in an imperfect world, the pursuit of objectivity, is at the very least, limiting. It allows the journalist to report the what, where and who of something, but not why, how it fits in to the bigger picture, what it all means, and whether itis in the public good. It subscribes to the ideal of the neutered journalist in a sterile ‘world. It confuses innocence with independence. But those who criticise objectivity as a flawed or incomplete description of what good journalistic practice entails must be able to offer a better alternative. Jt may be that in trying to do that, the conclusion is that journalism is a developing activity, picking up the best from each new school that emerges, discarding the aspects that don’t 6970 What's News? work and developing new ways of operating to meet changing circumstances and demands. It should take cognizance, for example, of technological changes chat mean the mass media from all over the world are available to anyone with Internet access, and that websites provide a ready outlet for alternative commentators such as Matt Drudge’s celebrated [Link]. Such developments inevitably shift the role and responsibilities of any one mainstream media outlet. Journalists could well select from the strengths of different models of journalism. From objectivity comes the docttine of fairness, the importance of journalistic independence and the imperative that reporters not use their privileged position to promote personal agendas. From evaluative journalism comes a respect for the independence of objectivity but an acknowledgement that journalists cannot, and should not, deny their judgements as they seek to give people a greacer depth of understanding, It requires journalists to give context and professional analysis co the bare facts. Civie or public journalism takes that a step further and says journalists should be active players in a democracy, with 4 responsibility to advance the public good. They should engage the citizenry in discussing and solving community problems. From investigative reporting comes the command to journalists to question and probe behind the views promoted by those paid to represent specist interests. From new journalism comes the challenge to question assumptions about the line between fact and fiction, and to be aware of the grey area where the selection and ordering of facts can create a fiction. Whatever model emerges from this, itis hard to see any honest, let alone very useful, description of good journalistic practice that fails r0 account for the need to make judgements on behalf of the readers, listeners and viewers. That requires a methodology chat deals with the subjective nature of journalism rather than denies it. References Brown, D. L. (2002, February 7-13). Canadi edicorial line. Guardian Weekly, p. 32. Borger, J. (2002, January 31—February 6). Long arm of Enron reaches into media. Guardian Weekly, p.6. Campbell, M. (2002, January 6). Second chances. Sunday Star Times, PP- c1-ce journalists must toe Objectivity Day, P. (1990). The making ofthe New Zealand press 1840-1880. Wellington: Victoria University Press. Day, P, (199). The radio years: A history of broadcasting in New Zealand Vel 1. ‘Auckland: Auckland University Press. Merrill, J.C. (1974). The imperative of freedom. New York: Hastings House. Rosen, J. (1999). What are journalists for? New Haven: Yale University Press. Scanlon, 8. (2002, February 5). $375,000 city state house rents for $77 2 week. Evening Post, p.3. Schudson, M. (2001). The objectivity norm in American journalism. Journalism 2 (2), 149-170. Stephens, M. (1988). 4 history of news. New York: Viking, Weir, D. & Noyes, D. (1983). Raising hell. Reading: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. 7