This week’s article by Sulzberger centers around the notion of independent journalism and questions whether it is possible, at its core, to attain full objectivity when covering the tumultuous events of the modern day. We are urged to reexamine the very norms and practices of reporting at the time when American news credibility is reaching its all time low, which according to Jeff Gerth’s reports is a trend intertwined with society’s increased polarization. Having acknowledged the shifting role of media from a handful of outlets dictating the national agenda to an unmediated surge of internet content crafted for niche audiences and catering directly to their identities and passions, Sulzberger urges us to push back against unreliable journalism and strive for the objective and the impartial in this impossible pursuit. To this end, he lays out the four principles of independence in practice: prioritize the process over outcome, follow the facts, cover the uncertainty, and navigate criticism. Though great in theory, the set of rules proves to be too idealistic once pitted against reality.
Can journalists control their own biases and blind spots? A more diverse room and a more independent newsroom are often seen as mutually exclusive propositions. Do journalists from underrepresented backgrounds bring in new perspectives or are deeply biased? The fact that nobody comes as a clean slate casts doubt on the extent to which objectivity is feasible. Familiarity with the topic can give a sharper eye for nuance and a healthier dose of skepticism, but at the same time runs the risk of imbuing one’s reporting with personal preconceptions. It’s unclear whether the audience’s benefit from the former would outweigh the harm of the latter.
How do we differentiate between true independence and the perception of independence? In his piece, Sulzberger disparages what he calls “a pantomime of fairness”, more often than not manifested through “both-sidesism”, or false equivalence, where lazy journalists resort to equating opinions for the sake of coming across as impartial, clearly ignoring the fact that the sides are not equally credible. What are the practices that can be put into place to assess one’s writing against this pitfall?
Should news organizations publish information that might be misused? Covering all the facts and conveying ambiguity is often met with criticism when reporting deals with vulnerable communities and reveals a piece of information that can be used to perpetuate their marginalization. The duty to cover every group with utmost respect, nuance and sensitivity should come at no surprise, but it’s also true that no such group can be homogenous and therefore agree on how they should be presented. Under the same category of existential questions falls the debate around “platforming”, namely voicing the opinions of those who are considered dangerous by one group or another. How do we navigate the fine line between estimating the potential impact the reporting might have and censoring oneself?
