Is it better to do what you feel is your moral duty as a journalist, or is objectivity the true goal? People like Walter Cronkite and Edward R. Murrow are unarguably two of the most admirable journalists the business has ever seen. And yet, both of these men broke one of journalism cardinal rules: be objective. But they were doing what they thought was right, right?
I think it’s an interesting idea to explore. What makes a great journalist? Is it high moral standards, a commitment to uncovering the truth, being willing to crusade for justice? Or is it objectivity and an unbiased presentation that makes an anchor, a reporter, an editor worthy of admiration? Can you be both? Can you be Walter Cronkite covering Watergate, and still report on the earthquake in Thailand?
I think so. I don’t think it’s one or the other that make you a good journalist, or an admirable one. You must be willing to do both. If the only thing you can do as a journalist is to hunt down stories, to report on their moral and ethical status, like Murrow in the McCarthy era, or Cronkite during Watergate and Vietnam, then you lose what credibility you may have. Especially now, in this era of integrated journalism, where any schmuck with a laptop and a camera (much like me) can report on whatever they want. There are blogs against Bush, against Obama, against abortion, against gay-marriage, for immigrant rights, conspiracy theory sites, the list is endless. But how do these sites establish credibility? They are all doing what Murrow and Cronkite did, they are finding a story, and following it to the bitter end, because they feel a duty to do so. To express their opinion on a topic. But to have any sort of standing within the ever-expanding world of information, they must have the facts. They must be objective. They don’t have a leg to stand on if they simply present an opinion. “Bush is stupid” doesn’t prove anything to me, you have no proof, there is no reason for me to believe what you’re saying. But if you can prove to me that Bush is stupid, then that’s a different story. His test scores, his grades, an IQ score, then we’re talking. Then I might believe you.
So why has the emphasis shifted? If you look at journalism today, particularly broadcast, the emphasis is on objectivity. Very rarely do you see an anchor going out on a limb like Cronkite did and telling a story he or she thinks deserves attention. The first example that springs to mind is the beginning of the Iraq war. I watched a lot of the coverage, and I don’t think I can remember one journalist standing up, on the air, or in the paper, and saying No, this is wrong. That is excluding shows like The Rachel Maddow show, people like Bill O’Rielly. Their broadcasts are editorials, I’m talking hard news journalists. They all reported the story, ad nauseum, but the ethical issues were never addressed on a subjective level. I think there’s something wrong with that. I think we have perhaps lost some of the virtue and some of the power of journalism when we let subjectivity go. There’s a power in opinion that ‘just the facts’ can’t compare to. As long as it’s supported by the facts, forming an opinion is what everyone does, and there’s no reason I can think of that journalists shouldn’t be able to utilize that.

Compare that to any of CNN, MSNBC, or any other networks news broadcasts, it holds so much more weight. It has so much more intensity.
Cronkite felt that Watergate deserved his attention, even when his studio disagreed. But he felt morally obligated to expose what he saw as a huge scandal. He turned out to be right, but he went on his gut. He took what facts he had, formed an opinion, and used his power as the anchor of the CBS news to help uncover one of the biggest political scandals in history. When was the last time Wolf Blitzer did that?

Advertisement