Jonathan Turley is concerned many people in the news media business now consider it a bad thing to be “objective.” His article is titled, “’Objectivity has got to go.’: News Leaders Call for the End of Objective Journalism.”
We previously discussed the movement in journalism schools to get rid of principles of objectivity in journalism. Advocacy journalism is the new touchstone in the media even as polls show that trust in the media is plummeting. Now, former executive editor for The Washington Post Leonard Downie Jr. and former CBS News President Andrew Heyward have released the results of their interviews with over 75 media leaders and concluded that objectivity is now considered reactionary and even harmful. Emilio Garcia-Ruiz, editor-in-chief at the San Francisco Chronicle said it plainly: “Objectivity has got to go.”
Notably, while Bob Woodward and others have finally admitted that the Russian collusion coverage lacked objectivity and resulted in false reporting, media figures are pushing even harder against objectivity as a core value in journalism.
Those who claim that objectivity is impossible often advocate the vague notion of “social justice” as the only alternative. Just because objectivity is difficult is not a reason for giving up on trying to find common ground on many facts. Giving up on trying to describe things objectively opens the door to mob rule based on feelings of what justice requires, feelings that are unanchored to a mutually-shared understanding of what is going on. Giving up on objectivity is giving up on the Rule of Law. Throwing the quest for objectivity overboard is one of many modern-day examples of violating the principle of Chesterson’s Fence, explained here by Shane Parrish of Farnam Street:
Do not remove a fence until you know why it was put up in the first place. Chesterton went on to explain why this principle holds true, writing that fences don’t grow out of the ground, nor do people build them in their sleep or during a fit of madness. He explained that fences are built by people who carefully planned them out and “had some reason for thinking [the fence] would be a good thing for somebody.” Until we establish that reason, we have no business taking an ax to it. The reason might not be a good or relevant one; we just need to be aware of what the reason is. Otherwise, we may end up with unintended consequences: second- and third-order effects we don’t want, spreading like ripples on a pond and causing damage for years . . . Many of the problems we face in life occur when we intervene with systems without an awareness of what the consequences could be.
