Rethinking Journalistic Ethics in Relation to Politics

Posted by Devin Johnston on February 8th, 2009

Pictured above: Bob Woodward by cliff1066. A theme that has come up again and again in my RSS reader of late is the role of media in a modern democracy. The blog Accidental Deliberations writes "it should [...] be asked whether the way politics are treated in the media exacerbates the rooting-for-laundry mentality". Meanwhile Progressive Bloggers admin Scott Tribe questions the media's reliance on uncorroborated anonymous sources to get an inside scoop on political stories. Further, questions about objectivity and impartiality abound. In response, the growing trend of citizen journalism including blogs and other media has positioned itself as a new form of political information that operates on a new paradigm of transparency. In this post, I scratch the surface on a number of different challenges facing political journalism. I won't make any argument today; I simply want to raise a few issues and explore some new ideas.

Objectivity

Objectivity is traditionally held to be one of the cornerstones of journalistic ethics. The good reporter is supposed to be a dispassionate observer who does not editorialize, but simply presents the facts as they appear on the face of things and allows the reader to come to her own conclusions. Increasingly, this traditional view is being challenged by a new generation of both amateur and professional journalists who argue that it is unrealistic to believe that a human being can report objectively on anything. For example, even if the reporter only publishes completely verifiable objective facts (e.g. "Party X introduced such and such bill. Group Y commented that the bill sucks because of blah blah blah"), there is a bias inherent in the selection of what stories merit publication, which facts are sufficiently relevant to get in to the report, and what aspects of the story get the most emphasis. The fact is that each journalist is a human being who possess a complex matrix of values, beliefs, opinions, and ideals that informs the decisions she makes and the stories she covers.

An emerging paradigm for journalistic objectivity is that of balance and disclosure. Under this paradigm, the journalist acknowledges her biases (both personal and systemic... see below) and seeks instead to make a reasonable effort to acknowledge alternative view points. In this scenario, the audience members (reader, viewer, what have you) can choose to tune in to information sources that are consistent with her own views or choose a mix in order to get a diversity of perspectives. Ideally, information sources that consistently provide skewed information are thrown by the wayside in preference for sources that provide coverage that, although flawed, is at least reasonable.

Maclean's national editor Andrew Coyne seems to fit this mould. He makes no bones about the fact that he is a fiscally conservative free-marketeer. However, he tries to at least acknowledge alternative viewpoints in his writing and discloses the personal bias that he holds. That is also what I try to do in my writing, although admittedly I fail sometimes. I try to disclose that I am a card carrying but critical New Democrat (sitting somewhere between the Liberals and NDP on most issues, although my views are somewhat nuanced) and I try to expose my core values to the scrutiny of my audience.

The downside to disclosure, particularly in relation to politics, is that some readers will choose to read only those sources consistent with their views. In other words, some consumers of information who are conservatively inclined will only read the Blogging Tories while some readers who are progressively inclined will only read Progressive Bloggers. Indeed, in my blog aggregator I predominately read New Dems, with a healthy mix of thoughtful Conservatives, Liberals, Greens, and others thrown in for good measure. However, the same can be said of information sources that do not disclose biases. That is, conservative readers will be attracted to conservative writers regardless of whether disclosure has taken place just as green readers will be attracted to green writers and so on.

What is the risk of non-disclosed bias? Consider, for example, Glenn Beck of Fox News. In the following clip, a journalist for a 24-hour news network that bills itself as "Fair and Balanced" goes on an over-the-top tirade against the "road to socialism" down which US President Barack Obama is ostensibly leading Americans. Mr. Beck, I am a socialist. And as a socialist, let me tell you: Barack Obama is no socialist.

Systemic Bias

Bias (as it relates to coverage of politics) is often framed in terms of partisan bias. However, there are other forms of bias that are far more pervasive than simple political preferences. One of the criticisms often made about the mainstream media (or MSM) by bloggers is that traditional media outlets are influenced in their coverage by certain systemic pressures that comprise the quality of journalism. For example, the need to compete for an audience causes journalists to tend toward sensationalist reporting and relying on single anonymous sources in order to break a story. Tight deadlines cause journalists to report on superficial horse-race stories rather than providing in depth analysis of substantive public policy issues. Advertising as primary source of revenue limits the scope of coverage to that which is friendly to the sponsors.

Systemic bias is not limited to professionalized traditional media, though it is easiest to identify such bias in those media. The tendency toward over-the-top sensationalism is prevalent among bloggers due to a competition for audience attention. It is unsurprising that may of the most popular bloggers in Canada (I'm thinking of Ezra Levant, My Blahg, etc.) use inflammatory rhetoric and unapologetic sensationalism in their writing.

The methods for confronting systemic bias will, of course, vary according to which bias we are confronting. However, a common feature of all systemic bias is that it is inherent in the nature of the medium. Understanding the varied forms of information media and how those media shape the content that they deliver are important first steps.

Professional vs. Citizen Journalism

Many professionalized traditional media are falling on hard times. Newspapers are going out of business across the industrial world. Television news networks are faring a bit better (although CanWest is struggling at the moment). Magazines are also a shrinking market. In place of these information sources, citizen journalism is playing a more prominent role as a source of primary information about politics and current affairs. This marks a significant shift in power and influence (though one that is easily and often overstated) and it gives rise to new tensions between professionalized news media and those they deride as amateurish hacks with no training in journalism or journalistic ethics.

To what extent should or do journalistic ethics apply to the emerging class of citizen journalists? And if ethics do indeed apply to the democratic mediascape, how are those ethics enforced? When speaking to old-skool journalists about this issue, I often describe blogs and emerging media as "radically peer edited" in the sense that information sources that do not adhere to a high standard of verifiability and reasonableness will not be taken seriously by the opinion leaders who shape online traffic. Then again, all information sources have their fanboys and their haters.

It's Time for a Discussion

I think that it's time for a real discussion about the role that various information media will play in our democracy as barriers to publishing continue to fall. Such discussions often turn unproductive very quickly. Bloggers and online content creators tend to be distrustful of "the MSM" and regard themselves as harbingers of a radically democratic and decentralized future mediascape. Meanwhile, professional journalists regard citizen journalism as amateurish, lacking in diligence, and of poor quality. Both positions expose legitimate concerns about two very different modes of conveying information to audiences and neither one should be dismissed. However, we must not let entrenched positions prevent us from having productive conversations.

To that end, I would like to open up the floor to commentary from all stakeholders about the future of the fourth estate. What will our mediascape look like in the future and what role does it play in our institutions of democracy? More importantly, what mechanisms of accountability and transparency are built in to the media that inform public opinion?

Spread the word and fan the winds of change: