User:Lhalas/sandbox

Hello, my name is Laura Halas and this is a test article part of the Wikipedia assignment for Communications 235.

Draft writing: Journalistic Objectivity article additions

I plan to add to several of the sections within this article, including the history, definitions, criticisms, and alternatives. According to Wikipedia, the article is written "like a personal reflection or opinion essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings about a topic", and thus I plan to revise the article so it adheres to Wikipedia's encyclopedic standards instead. Calcutt and Hammond will be utilized to trace the history and suggested conceptualizations of the notion of objectivity, as well as other scholars research on the topic.

I would also like to add a short section on crowdfunding, as I think this is an interesting and increasingly prevalent phenomenon among modern journalistic practice, and thus is relevant to modern considerations of journalistic objectivity.

Crowdfunding (new section):

Recently, many scholars and journalists have increasingly become attuned to the shifts occurring within the newspaper industry, and general upheaval of the journalistic environment, as it adjusts to the new digital era of the 21st century. In the face of this, the practice of crowdfunding is increasingly being utilized by journalists to fund independent and/or alternative projects. This practice may be a relevant consideration in the discussion of journalistic objectivity, as the innate nature of crowdfunding highlights certain tensions of the discussion.

According to a study conducted by Hunter (2014), journalist's who engaged in crowdfunding all ultimately held a similar opinion that their funders did not have control over the content, and that it was the journalist who maintained ultimate jurisdiction. However, this pronouncment was complicated by the sense of accountability or responsibility that was incited in journalists towards their funders. Hunter (2014) notes that this may have the effect of creating a power imbalance between funders and the journalist, as journalists want to maintain editorial control, but it is in fact the funders that decide whether the project will be a success or not, meaning they ultimately hold the power.

To combat this, Hunter (2014) noted certain strategies journalists may employ to maintain a more objective approach, if desired: maintaining an imaginary firewall between them and their audiences, limiting investments from single sources, and/or clearly defining the relationship they desire with funders at the outset of the project.

Some journalists from the study firmly held the opinion that impartial accounts and a detached, namely 'objective', reporting style should continue to govern, even within a crowdfunding context. Others, however, advocated that point-of-view journalism and accurate reporting are not mutually exclusive ideals, and thus journalists still may ascribe to quality factual reporting, sans the traditional practices or understanding of objectivity.

Criticisms (section):

Excerpt of previously written...

"Another example of an objection to objectivity, according to communication scholar David Mindich, was the coverage that the major papers (most notably the New York Times) gave to the lynching of thousands of African Americans during the 1890s. News stories of the period often described with detachment the hanging, immolation and mutilation of people by mobs. Under the regimen of objectivity, news writers often attempted to balance these accounts by recounting the alleged transgressions of the victims that provoked the lynch mobs to fury. Mindich argues that this may have had the effect of normalizing the practice of lynching."

In a more recent example, Calcutt and Hammond note that since the 1990's, war reporting (especially) has more and more come to criticize and reject the practice of objectivity. In 1998, a BBC reporter, Martin Bell, noted that he favoured a "journalism of attachment", over the previously sought after dispassionate approach. Similarily, a US reporter from CNN, Christiane Amanpour, stated that in some circumstances "neutrality can mean you are an accomplice to all sorts of evil". Each of these opinions stems from scholar's and journalist's critique of objectivity as too "heartless" or "forensic" to report the human natured and emotionally charged issues found in war and conflict reporting.

EXPAND ON THIS IDEA WITH DISCUSSION FROM CALCUTT & HAMMOND ABOUT HOW REPORTERS ASCRIBING TO OBJECTIVITY DURING WAR/CONFLICT REPORTING CONSIDERED TOO EMOTIONLESS AND PRESCRIPTIVE AND HEARTLESS (p. 115)

END SECTION ON NOTE OF HOW Judith Litchenberg offers suggestion of that critique of objectivity is because of a lack of understanding of it's true intentions.. which is to uncover truth and incite discussion.. critique of it really a critique of the institutionalized and mere conventional practices that have developed along side it.. lost true spirit.. which is unfortunate. (p. 103 [top]). And then discuss how ongoing critiques often just fuel more cynicism.. failing to really offer or pursue new ways of going about things.

Another notion circulating around the critique of objectivity is proposed by scholar Judith Lichtenberg. She notes the logical inconsistency that arises when scholars or journalists criticize journalism for failing to be objective, while simultaneously proposing there is no such thing as objectivity. Underpinning critiques of objectivity that arose in the 1970's and 1980's, this dual theory - Lichtenberg refers to it as a "compound assault on objectivity" - invalidates itself, as each element of the argument refutes the other. Lichtenberg agrees with other scholars that view objectivity as mere conventional practice: she states that "much of what goes under the name of objectivity reflects shallow understanding of it". Thus, she suggests that these practices, rather than the overall notion of objectivity (whose primary aim, according to Lichtenberg, is only to seek and pursue truth), should really be the target of critique.

Then proceed into alternatives section... and insert info about crowdfunding as increasingly prevalent practice within modern journalism.. and discuss notion of objectivity within this context (from reading "Crowdfunding", Hunter, 2014)

History (section):

Within a wider historical context, there are three occurrences that can be noted as key to the establishment of objectivity as a professional norm in American journalism.

First of these occurrences is the emergence of a bourgeois public sphere, early in the 18th century. During this time, the press grew as an instrument that served to inform and facilitate discussion among the public. Previously, authority was held by the church, and religious truths and eyewitness accounts often ruled as the 'objective' truth within the press. However, The Age of Reason gradually evolved and the pursuit of objective scientific and political knowledge gained traction, eventually extending beyond the bourgeois public sphere into the journalistic arena as well. Habermas (1989) declared the following of this era: "there was an ‘influx of rational- critical arguments into the press’, making it ‘an instrument with whose aid political decisions could be brought before the new forum of the public’" (p. 58).

The bourgeois class of this era gradually gained more power throughout the 19th century, eventually evolving into the prevailing capitalist ruling class. With this establishment came the separation of 'respectable' and 'radical' titles in the news press. Despite the suggested implications of the name, the 'radical' press did adhere to objective and neutral reporting, while simultaneously advocating for political and social change for the working class public. Conversely, the 'respectable' news titles adhered to the status quo of the ruling class, adopting a conservative political outlook and targeting the upper classes of society.

It wasn't until the beginning of the 20th century that objectivity was more officially enshrined as a norm of professional journalism. During World War I, scholar Stuart Allan (1997) suggests that propaganda campaigns, as well the rise of "press agents and publicity experts", fostered a growing cynicism among the public towards state institutions and "official channels of information". Thus, the elevation of objectivity constituted an effort to re-legitimate the news press, as well as the state in general.

During the period following World War II, the established rules and practices of objectivity led to a brief national consensus and temporary suspension of negative public opinion; however, doubts and uncertainties in "the institutions of democracy and capitalism" resurfaced in the period of civil unrest during the 1960's and 1970's, ultimately leading to the emergence of the critique of objectivity.

From previous article: pretty severe lack of citations... not sure how much of this can actually be used

"But into the first decade of the twentieth century, even at The New York Times, it was uncommon for to see a sharp divide between facts and values. Before World War I, journalists did not think much about the subjectivity of perception. They believed that facts are not human statements about the world but aspects of the world itself. After the war, however, this changed. Journalists, like others, lost faith in verities a democratic market society had taken for granted. The experience of propaganda during the war convinced them that the world they reported was one that interested parties had constructed for them to report. In the twenties and thirties, many journalists observed that facts themselves, or what they had taken to be facts, could not be trusted. One response to this discomfiting view was "objectivity". Facts were no longer understood as aspects of the world, but consensually validated statements about it. Thus, from the 1920s on, the idea that human beings individually and collectively construct the reality they deal with has held a central position to social thought and encouraged a more sophisticated ideal of "objectivity" among journalists.

Some historians, like Gerald Baldasty, have observed that "objectivity" went hand in hand with the need to make profits in the newspaper business by selling advertising. In this economic analysis, publishers did not want to offend any potential advertising customers and therefore encouraged news editors and reporters to strive to present all sides of an issue and more of the bright side of life. Advertisers would remind the press that partisanship hurts circulation, and, consequently, advertising revenues.

Others have proposed a political explanation for the rise of objectivity..."

Definitions (section):

Used from article already... (but rearranged)

"Sociologist Michael Schudson suggests that "the belief in objectivity is a faith in 'facts,' a distrust in 'values,' and a commitment to their segregation". It also implies an institutional role for journalists as a fourth estate, a body that exists apart from government and large interest groups. Journalistic objectivity requires that a journalist not be on either side of an argument. The journalist must report only the facts and not a personal attitude toward the facts."

While objectivity is a complex and dynamic notion that may refer to a multitude of techniques and practices, it generally refers to the idea of "three distinct, yet interrelated, concepts": truthfulness, neutrality, and detachment. Truthfulness is a commitment to reporting only accurate and truthful information, without skewing any facts or details to improve the story or better allign an issue with any certain adgenda. Neutrality suggests that stories be reported in an unbiased, even-handed, and impartial manner. Under this notion, journalists are to side with none of the parties involved, and simply provide the relevant facts and information of all. The third idea, detachment, refers to the emotional approach of the journalist. Essentially, reporters should not only approach issues in an unbiased manner, but also with a dispassionate and emotionless attitude. Though this strategy, stories can be presented in a rational and calm manner, letting the audience make up their minds without any influences from the media.