The Pew Research Center recently surveyed journalists in the USA, attempting to gauge attitudes towards subjectivity vs. objectivity.
To elaborate further, the research aimed to further understand reactions toward one particular statement: should both sides of an argument be given equal coverage? Of course, there were a wide variety of answers across the board, with opinions varying amongst age groups and whatnot. It’s honestly a very interesting discussion that the Pew Research Center has raised, and one that my typically opinionated self has no concrete side to pick on. Of course, attitudes to such a question are rarely ever yes or no. It entirely depends on a mix of personal opinions, the topic itself, and the surrounding sociopolitical climate. I would feel that it is my journalistic duty to provide both sides of an argument if said argument revolved around, say, pizza with or without pineapple. It’s a topic in which neither answer severely harms or affects the other group. However, if I was asked to write an essay giving both the BLM movement and the rising Neo-Nazi tirade equal attention and care, I’d very much balk at the task. One of these sides is incredibly dangerous to the others (hint: it’s not the BLM movement), and therefore deserves no real journalistic protection.
76% of the general American populace thinks that both sides deserve equal subjectivity. However, when journalists are taken into consideration, opinions are rather sharply divided; 55% believe that objectivity should be the name of the game. Of these individuals, 50% in the 50-64 age group and 49% in the 65 and above group take the side of objectivity, arguing that journalistic integrity requires taking hard stances on topics. However, when it comes to relatively younger groups, further room for subjectivity is made. Specifically, the age groups 18-29 and 30-49 have 37% and 39% of professionals advocating for subjectivity.
Perhaps one can chalk it down to the younger generations having more open minds to newer topics and ideas; I can certainly believe that. What I’m not willing to agree with, however, is always allowing both sides the benefit of the doubt. The biggest arguments that racists and the like have in our modern day revolve around how the media doesn’t provide them enough coverage (even as Fox News and 4Chan spread like cancer). My point is that when people use a podium to call for hate and discrimination against those much less privileged, then our journalistic drive for impartialness should dissolve.
Read next: Shipments of iSIM-based cellular devices are going to cross 7 Billion in the next 8 years
To elaborate further, the research aimed to further understand reactions toward one particular statement: should both sides of an argument be given equal coverage? Of course, there were a wide variety of answers across the board, with opinions varying amongst age groups and whatnot. It’s honestly a very interesting discussion that the Pew Research Center has raised, and one that my typically opinionated self has no concrete side to pick on. Of course, attitudes to such a question are rarely ever yes or no. It entirely depends on a mix of personal opinions, the topic itself, and the surrounding sociopolitical climate. I would feel that it is my journalistic duty to provide both sides of an argument if said argument revolved around, say, pizza with or without pineapple. It’s a topic in which neither answer severely harms or affects the other group. However, if I was asked to write an essay giving both the BLM movement and the rising Neo-Nazi tirade equal attention and care, I’d very much balk at the task. One of these sides is incredibly dangerous to the others (hint: it’s not the BLM movement), and therefore deserves no real journalistic protection.
76% of the general American populace thinks that both sides deserve equal subjectivity. However, when journalists are taken into consideration, opinions are rather sharply divided; 55% believe that objectivity should be the name of the game. Of these individuals, 50% in the 50-64 age group and 49% in the 65 and above group take the side of objectivity, arguing that journalistic integrity requires taking hard stances on topics. However, when it comes to relatively younger groups, further room for subjectivity is made. Specifically, the age groups 18-29 and 30-49 have 37% and 39% of professionals advocating for subjectivity.
Perhaps one can chalk it down to the younger generations having more open minds to newer topics and ideas; I can certainly believe that. What I’m not willing to agree with, however, is always allowing both sides the benefit of the doubt. The biggest arguments that racists and the like have in our modern day revolve around how the media doesn’t provide them enough coverage (even as Fox News and 4Chan spread like cancer). My point is that when people use a podium to call for hate and discrimination against those much less privileged, then our journalistic drive for impartialness should dissolve.
