Why objective journalism is a misleading and dangerous Illusion by Rob Wijnberg (de Correspondent)
Why objective journalism is a misleading and dangerous Illusion by Rob Wijnberg
The article starts with a quote from Marcel Gelauff, the chief of the public news channel NOS Journaal, where he expresses his point of view on objectivity.
‘Wij willen geen standpunt over het nieuws innemen. Wij willen dat ons publiek een standpunt over het nieuws inneemt.’
(we don’t want to pick a side when we deliver the news, we would like the public to make up their own mind)
According to Rob Wijnberg objectivity is a misunderstood, persistent and dangerous illusion what journalist have started to believe in.
Misunderstood, because it's independence is confused with impartial.
It’s dangerous because this is the biggest lie you could sell a public.
Persistent, because it causes laziness and it's cheap.
Dangerous, because it's de biggest lie wich you can tell the public.
Illusion, because it doesn't exist.
Rob explains:
Journalistic objectivity, in western society, starts in the late 19 century, the journalist was just a reporter from the king and simply reported what's been said.
The rise of journalism came during the Age of Enlightenment, they became critical, refused to be just a messenger. They decide what to report and only when the story has been checked, this is what they meant with objectivity.
Now, more than a century later objectivity became to have a different meaning, the journalist doesn't decide what is news, but only reports what happens in the world. It's up to the public to make up their own point of view. The rulers of the countries provide themselves with pr-professional, who help to sculpt their story before it even reaches the journalist.
Objectivity doesn't exist and to take no position in reporting is simply not possible, behind every reporter lies a point of view based on.
ontologically - What is the reality?
epistemological - What is the truth?
methodologically - How can we find out?
the moral - Why is it important?
So all news is selected and brought acording a point of view. The subject of news is selected and the storytelling style is chosen. For example: Bombing by the IS is called a terrorist attack and bombing by Western Government is called bombings.
Even if objectively would exist wanting to by objective is a wrong aim. The term nowadays it's been used so the journalist doesn't have a moral judgment. But if you a report doesn't need to have the moral judgment, you are left with a journalist without a opinion. Two things can happen: He only writes down the opinions of others, wich makes him a mouthpiece of the establishment. The establishment could be the people in power who decides what is right and wrong. This is exactly the opposite of what the enlightenment meant with objective journalism, this brings us back to the dictating king.
If you leave the point of view to the public the democracy comes in danger. The news is one of the most important sources in our society. It defines our knowledge and opinion of the world. It influences our voting, our opinion of other people, countries, and cultures.You could say it could even influence our thoughts on ourselves. It is the job of the journalist to be critical of establishment in power and to seek the truth. This should offer context and perspective on situations.
Conclusion : If you don't take a point of view, you are not just a mouthpiece of the establishment but also a wheelbarrow for a lie.