In “Journalism’s Essential Value” A.G. Sulzberger explains why he believes it is imperative that journalist continue to uphold the value of “independence” in their reporting, also contentiously known as “objectivity.” His essay is arguably a response to a movement in journalism to “own up” to human bias and acknowledge that individual perspectives are, and should, be reflected in journalistic reporting. Those who espouse this belief claim that it is actually beneficial to include a journalist’s moral perspective in their writing and additionally, is only logical as humans are intrinsically biased and informed by their backgrounds. Sulzberger writes about his long history with the New York Times and how his great-great-grandfather founded the modern NYT on the principle of independent impartial journalism and against the popular (and more lucrative) sensationalist publications of the time period. He recognizes the mistakes and controversies that the NYT has found itself in, citing examples from their coverage of the Soviet Union to Iraq, but ultimately credits the publication’s dedication to independence as the value that has upheld its integrity through tumultuous times.
The press, Sulzburger writes, plays an important, and uncomplicated, role in society. It disseminates true information to the public. He cites correlation between “the world’s healthiest democracies and maps of the world’s freest press environments” as evidence of the press’ role as ensuring a free society. Therefore, there is all the more reason to continue the NYT’s position as an unbiased, truthful, and nuanced fountain of knowledge. When the NYT’s coverage is criticized, it is not so much that it was inaccurate, but rather that readers are concerned about the misuse of its published information. The NYT investigation in Rosenstein, and the subsequent pushback from the left about how this gives Trump the ability to fire Rosenstein, and end the Mueller investigation, is a perfect example of how a journalist’s role as disseminator of knowledge to promote a free society can be conflated with the fictional role of enforcing a free society.
It is not, and under no circumstances should be, the responsibility of a journalist to ignore a verifiable, independent, and important truth to achieve an ulterior goal. Journalists should not police how readers interpret or utilize the news. The consequence of such journalism leads to echo-chamber writing and preferential coverage that would not contribute to a free and democratic society. That form of journalism would only serve to further the agenda of whoever has the last say on what can and can not be published. Journalists should be on a mission to uncover the truth, and relay the truth to their readers. Doing so ensures that society can have a “shared reality” in which productive debate is possible.
Of course, this “shared reality,” promoted by objective journalism, can be made impossible to achieve if readers do not trust the publication. This is what the US has been experiencing for a few years. Both the right and left politics disbelieve what media that appears to promote or support the others’ politics. In this case, reality is not shared between readers which leads discourse to become a lofty goal, while democracy begins to become less stable.
Additionally, journalists and readers will argue that publishing the writings of, for example, terrorists or Nazis, can be dangerous and result in real harm. Also, that their publication, without explicit condemnation, basically equals an endorsement, or at least legitimization of those ideas. Sulzberger pushes back by saying he believes the censoring of unpopular ideas could also result in harm to a society. Ultimately, it is Sulzberger’s belief that a society is better off if there is greater freedom of the press, more objectivity, and less censorship.
