Journalism and ethics: what’s the deal?

What is journalism? That’s the provocative and open-ended sort of question you might expect to see at the start of an article in order to draw attention, and what do you know, there it is! But maybe it’s a little too big-picture for this little editorial. Let’s focus in a bit more, just for the sake of my poor, exhausted typing fingers. How about something spicy? A hot-button issue that’s always on people’s minds, to keep you engaged. Does that sound nice? Great! Let’s talk about journalistic ethics.
A newspaper reports a tragedy with language that shifts blame off of the perpetrators. An online outlet runs a column from a raging bigot, presented as fact. These are some clear-cut examples of unethical coverage, for one pretty clear reason: they aren’t presenting the truth. That’s the big word when it comes to journalism: truth. You won’t find me arguing against the value of true things, but there’s something more specific that people will say they don’t like about these situations: they’re biased.
There is, culturally, a considerable focus on avoiding bias in journalism. This may seem like an obvious thing to care about– bias twists objective reality, and the news should report the truth as it is. In fact, there was a whole law that the Federal Communications Commission made in the 40’s called the Fairness Doctrine that made it so licensed broadcasters had to cover controversial issues, and they had to present both sides without leaning either way.
On its face, this is a good idea. There are, however, a couple issues with this train of thought. Let’s embark on a different one: the express monorail of critical thinking. The first thing to consider is this: how does a person get rid of bias? By what method does one decide what position most neatly fits with objective reality? They must decide somehow. In fact, they probably just think about it really hard.
Maybe they even ask some other people to think about it too. There lies the problem, though. No step in that process actually includes objective reality; it’s all running through messy brains with preconceived notions and, yes, bias. Before you set aside all reporting as nonsense made by charlatans though, I have a second consideration for you. This one might put some people off initially, but bear with me. What’s wrong with bias?
Again, hear me out here. The goal of presenting reality as objectively as possible is certainly a noble one, but fundamentally misled. Simply put, there’s no such thing as “objectivity.” Reality is just what people perceive, and to pretend otherwise is what’s actually dishonest. Let’s go back to those earlier examples. You can re-read that paragraph if you want, I can wait. Are you back? Okay, good. So those cases were pretty clear-cut and blatant breaches or obfuscations, which is why I used them to set off your alarm bells.
But what if I told you this is always happening, you just don’t notice? News stories have leanings and agendas that they hide much more deftly. At this point in the article you’re probably thinking that journalism as an industry is about as good as one-ply toilet paper, and belongs in the same place. Don’t get it twisted– I’m not just pointing at a problem, I’m also offering an alternative.
Journalists, in fact, have a moral obligation not to avoid their own bias, but to recognize and disclose it. How do you best keep readers from drawing wrong conclusions about the world based on the lens through which you portray it? You tell them what the lens is. Funhouse mirrors are only confusing if you aren’t expecting them. If you look closely, you can see reality just fine through the warped glass.
Let’s take a step back. Who do I think I am? I’m just some guy writing for a little tiny school newspaper. I’m not even going to go into journalism for a career! No way am I going to be able to change any of this at all. In fact, people on this paper disagree with me about many of these points.
Speaking of which, this is a good time to mention that the opinions expressed in these editorials are not reflective of those of anyone other than me.
This is the second time I’ve written an article just to essentially negate most of its message in the last few paragraphs, so let me introduce some nuance. My real, actionable call to action is this: pay more attention to who’s writing the stuff you read. It may sound obvious, but people seem to always forget the cardinal rule of the internet, which is not to believe anything you read on it.
Don’t repeat things uncritically.
While I’m at it, I’ll lay another few platitudes on you. Think for yourself, do your own research, and don’t assume other people have your best interests in mind. That might feel like a bit of a cheap payoff to all the buildup on the rest of this page, but it serves a purpose. These editorials so far have not been my attempt to make you think the same things that I do; I just want you to think.
Anyone can point out the obvious, but the problem with the obvious is that you don’t stop to actually look at it. That’s my real goal: I want to give you, the reader, a healthy sense of skepticism. It doesn’t matter to me what you think, as long as it was carefully thought out.