There are two words about reporting for which I have a strong dislike: objective and balance. Both of these concepts are intended to avoid onesideism, but both create failures.
Objectivity in reporting is a myth. We are all human, and all have human thoughts and feelings that drive us. There is an objective reality, but no one can see …
There are two words about reporting for which I have a strong dislike: objective and balance. Both of these concepts are intended to avoid onesideism, but both create failures.
Objectivity in reporting is a myth. We are all human, and all have human thoughts and feelings that drive us. There is an objective reality, but no one can see it -- no one is capable of separating their perspective (with its underlying experiences, context, and emotions) from objective reality, and journalists should not pretend otherwise. The very facts that a reporter chooses as important are dictated by this very perspective, and that should be laid openly.
Balance in reporting is not a desirable goal. Representing truth as best one can is a desirable goal. Balance does not further that goal because it is a mechanical, performative thing. Balance suggests that the end state of an article should have some form of equal weighting to the various points of view involved. It's important to have equal weighting in consideration and fairness, but it is not important to have equal weighting in the resulting evaluation.
Instead of objectivity and balance, writers should strive for fairness (what Mr. Barber referred to as "even-handedness" I think) -- fairness to the various viewpoints represented in an article about an issue. Sometimes being fair to absurd viewpoints means showing their absurdity -- but from a place of considering context of that viewpoint from that' viewpoint's perspective as best one can.
I heartily agree with the thrust of Mr. Barber's article: onesideism is a problem which is solved by even-handedness and respect for other views during investigation and analysis.
There are two words about reporting for which I have a strong dislike: objective and balance. Both of these concepts are intended to avoid onesideism, but both create failures.
Objectivity in reporting is a myth. We are all human, and all have human thoughts and feelings that drive us. There is an objective reality, but no one can see it -- no one is capable of separating their perspective (with its underlying experiences, context, and emotions) from objective reality, and journalists should not pretend otherwise. The very facts that a reporter chooses as important are dictated by this very perspective, and that should be laid openly.
Balance in reporting is not a desirable goal. Representing truth as best one can is a desirable goal. Balance does not further that goal because it is a mechanical, performative thing. Balance suggests that the end state of an article should have some form of equal weighting to the various points of view involved. It's important to have equal weighting in consideration and fairness, but it is not important to have equal weighting in the resulting evaluation.
Instead of objectivity and balance, writers should strive for fairness (what Mr. Barber referred to as "even-handedness" I think) -- fairness to the various viewpoints represented in an article about an issue. Sometimes being fair to absurd viewpoints means showing their absurdity -- but from a place of considering context of that viewpoint from that' viewpoint's perspective as best one can.
I heartily agree with the thrust of Mr. Barber's article: onesideism is a problem which is solved by even-handedness and respect for other views during investigation and analysis.