Isn’t objectivity the great empty shibboleth of American journalism? I would like to see more in this section about “balance” and “fairness,” two concepts that have more utility than objectivity.

The problem with ‘balance’ is that it is so easily misapplied. We see this over and over in science journalism on subjects as diverse as global warming and evolutionary theory. There is often intense pressure on journalists to ‘balance’ their stories by giving equal time to poorly supported ideas. To me, the key is to strive for fairness, not balance or objectivity. Fairness is a highly subjective concept, but I think we can grope our way towards it through careful reasoning and the rigorous examination of case studies.

I think balance is most importantly part of the journalistic process.

As this guide says in previous sections, a journalist should be calling as many sources from different viewpoints as possible. But as reporting progresses, the journalist may determine that one viewpoint is not valid or even untrue.

The “he said, she said” approach is bad journalism because the reporter isn’t showing how much credence each person has - and whether they are backed up by numbers, previous articles, other sources, or documents.

For each claim, the other side should be given a chance to respond, but it isn’t a journalist’s responsibility to trust the other side if they are unwilling to back themselves up.

If a spokesperson denies something, they should also have provide a transcript of a meeting, documents, or additional interviews with members of the organization to verify their statement. The less they are willing to do, the less prominence they should have in the story.

I would have liked for this section to address the inherent subjectivity of narrative. Expressions of point of view don’t always boil down to Pro or Anti stances, after all. And in narrative writing the issue of authorial subjectivity (e.g. the taking of descriptive liberties) is somewhat more ambiguous than the decision to advocate or denigrate something or other in a straight news piece.

I’m not even sure that objectivity is a realistic, or even a desirable, objective. A journalist’s convictions can influence a story in a thousand subtle ways, from what is said to what is left unsaid, and even the most noble-intentioned of us are in some ways helpless to fully control this. I admire the British model, where you know what biases the publication has before you open it. The reader can make up his or her own mind.

Objectivity is an absurd notion. Humans react to what they experience, hear, and see, based on their history, their disposition, their genetic makeup, their mood, and so on.

When a news organization insists that a reporter show no bias, what it’s really saying is: “Hide what you believe.” It’s often equivalent to an order to lie by omission.

So-called “balance” is as dishonest as so-called “objectivity.” “Balanced” reporting often requires a reporter to treat two points of view on a topic as mere opinion, no matter how much evidence shows one to be fact and the other, fiction.

Can our top journalistic enterprises continue to peddle “just the facts” now that news flows free and fast through the Internet? Point of view, from this perspective, becoming not only a potentially greater accuracy but one form of the necessary added value. See:http://www.cjr.org/feature/beyond_the_news.php

This, I think, is one of the most prevalent dilemmas in American journalism. Our drive to provide objective news at all times results in the bias seeping in. Sometimes the concealed bias is deliberate, other times it subconsciously finds its way in during the writing process. Instead of the public knowing a writer’s position outright, it has a bigger chance of being fooled.

When I visit Europe, where my family resides, I’m often taken aback by the blatantly expressed opinions of many journalists. In a way, however, I like the idea of ‘what you see is what you get’. I don’t have to sit and wonder the writer’s true intentions or biases. I find it interesting that my parents are consistently most impressed by the opinion-driven Week in Review-section of the Times.