Journalists are objective. Bloggers are not. The two have been duking it out since the dawn of the Internet age. Journalists think objectivity will save their jobs and bloggers know that is nonsense. Old media is not irrelevant, but they are digging themselves into a hole. Let me explain.
First, understand that journalism has never been objective. Newspapers first emerged as political publications funded by partisan parties and read by the top of society’s pyramid. Then in a move to both democratize media and increase profits, newspapers dropped their prices and attracted multitudes of immigrants and workers as subscribers in order to sell those eyeballs to eager advertisers.
That should sound similar to today’s content farm with one big exception – newspapers were written by an elite group of thought-leaders (and still are), and so the power to create and distribute information remained in the hands of just a few.
Fast-forward a century, give or take a few decades, and you have the media industry that politics and technology built. But now the Internet has given everyone the opportunity to create and distribute information. No longer is news controlled by large media conglomerates, but by anyone who wants to contribute to the conversation.
On the Internet, we have largely admitted that individual and institutional objectivity is impossible. Not even Google tries to offer impartial news results when you search, preferring instead to offer up “the most articulate and passionate people arguing both sides of the equation,” says Google News’ founder, Krishna Bharat. Today we trust algorithms to deliver objectivity since humans cannot.
Objectivity is null on the web because the reader can always self-verify and fact-check themselves. That is what the proliferation of information is there for. You will be tracked. “Objectivity is a trust mechanism you rely on when your medium can’t do links,” technologist David Weinberger argued back in the day. “Transparency is the new objectivity.”
Fair enough if you have the time to click on all of those links, but none of us do. Not to mention transparency often stifles meaningful dialogue. Nevertheless and despite my own bias on it, transparency is just as useful as objectivity in holding individuals and companies accountable, and as a big bonus, it doesn’t require you to act like an impartial noob.
Now, here’s what’s important.
The real reason newspapers can’t transition online is because they’re holding onto the veil of objectivity as the reason for their relevance. Readers, in turn, cry foul because they know objectivity is unreasonable, and instead uphold the virtues of new media. Then everyone declares traditional media is dead.
Sad face.
The thing is, objectivity is irrelevant, not news organizations. Rule number one in running a business is to determine the value you provide to your customers. A newspaper’s value doesn’t lie in it’s impartiality, so it’s ridiculous that traditional media continues to place those virtues on a pedestal. The traditional news model is not outdated, but journalists’ ideologies are.
Why do news companies continue to praise impartiality? Well, the veil of objectivity did allow newspapers to have a successful advertiser-subscriber model. And being profitable subsequently allowed newspapers to fund long investigations that readers came to rely on. So media organizations often confuse their business model, objective reporting and actual good journalism – that is, investigative reporting, news that is highly crafted and cared for, and that continuous sifting and winnowing for the truth at all costs.
A journalist doesn’t ask “Why? What? How?” because they’re impartial. They ask because they care. They ask because they have passion for the topic. They ask because they want to uncover injustices, right wrongs and make a difference.
There’s no reason why the Washington Post, Chicago Tribune and New York Times should insist on objectivity as superiority. It has nothing to do with the actual amazing content they provide day in and day out.
The real travesty is not the loss of impartiality then, which never existed anyway, but the fact that without big profits, there are no big budgets, and no big investigations. Only half of the states in the U.S. now have even one full-time reporter in Washington, D.C., for instance. Can we keep our politicians accountable through our computer screens if a smaller and smaller number of people show up in real life?
No, we cannot. Nor can we uphold fair labor practices or ensure financial rigor at banks or keep up with everything else that’s important to our society. Blogs don’t have big budgets either. So journalists and bloggers both end up having to pander to page-view journalism, which serves advertisers alone (witness the devolution of media).
Here’s what the New York Times and the rest should do. Let go of objectivity. It’s elitist, it’s unattainable and it’s not important. Talk about real benefits. Charge for access and load up on advertisers to make mad money and deliver mad value.
It’s okay to have an opinion. In fact, it’s what makes us human.
9 replies on “Old Media Needs an Opinion”
Once again, Rebecca Thorman proves why Kontrary is worth every penny. Just yesterday I was invited to a meeting at a traditional media (to the core) newspaper. They’re launching a new web service/hub to spur creativity/innovation in the social sector.
Good idea.
It will be poorly executed.
Why? Because they’re trying to get perspective under the old machinery of “objectivity.” They want to be fair, but great ideas rarely are. Likewise, social change usually only happens quickly when there is a perceived crisis. Disaster relief, for example, gets lots of people to open up their wallets because of the immediacy of the need and impact.
Public education, healthcare, energy – all are crises but don’t get urgent and wave-like responses from the masses.
But, the very organization that could position these as crises (by putting the story on the front page of their newspaper) are usually unwilling to do so. And the disconnect persists. And they’ll keep trying to find more money from the same old advertisers.
Sad face.
Thanks for the comment, Sam! I appreciate you sharing that story. The book I recommended in the sidebar talks about how media is a mirror and that we can change it, but it will be difficult to do so. The media industry really completely reflects everything else that’s going on – it’s fragmented and in disagreement, so are politics and business. What we perceive as crisis and important are also reflected in the media, and it will be interesting to watch this change. It’s important that we realize it can change, which as you mention, most of the old guard isn’t willing to do. I’m definitely going to think more on this… thanks again!
Ha, that’s why I stopped reading Singapore’s only broadsheet The Straits (Sh*tty) Times back when I was 15, because I was convinced they were nothing more than a mouthpiece for the ruling political party – ok, maybe I still read the sports section, a girl’s gotta have something.
Every form of media has its agenda; it would be disingenuous to believe otherwise. I think the Economist does it right by taking various stands on issues, but then they’ve always been upfront about their leanings since day one.
I think the key part of your comment is that “they’ve always been upfront about their leanings since day one.” It is that transparency that the Internet has deemed essential and does keep everyone accountable. You’re absolutely right, every person, every institution has an agenda and yet we still hold impartiality up as a virtue. I just don’t get it. Thanks for sharing your experiences! Also, curious, what do you read instead of the “Shi*tty” Times? Something online? A different newspaper? Neither?
I would like to think I am impartial and objective when called upon to be so, but life has shown me it’s easier said than done. ;-) How much more institutions, especially those whose purpose is to disseminate information and happenings.
I read the Economist (lucky to have an office subscription) and the WSJ for financial news, the NYT and sometimes the IHT for general international news, and for important local news (such as our recent parliamentary General Elections) I read an alternative political news site The Online Citizen or watch local parody news show The Noose which makes keeping the finger on the local pulse a lot more fun.
How about yourself? I’m deducing you read the NYT and Washington Post amongst others?
I read the NYT for sure. I looove it. I started reading it a lot in college because my roommates had a subscription and when I left, I read it online. I’ll read the others less often. Otherwise, I read blogs. Interesting that you brought up local news. Research shows that local broadcast is the only news that hasn’t declined.
Read this quote two days ago. Sort of related, especially to the first part of your post:
“Political or military commentators, like astrologers, can survive almost any mistake, because their more devoted followers do not look to them for an appraisal of the facts but for the stimulation of nationalistic loyalties.” – George Orwell
What’s interesting about that quote and how the media has evolved is that journalists once had to provide consensus and did have their pulse on what the public thought. With the fragmentation of media though, that’s nearly impossible, and it’s why the media will blather on about Monica Lewinsky back in the day or Donald Trump now when no one cares. So another reason the traditional power structures are slipping…
To be a good performer new jordans you should look comfortable on stage. This means no fidgeting, fixing of clothes, hair, or staring cheap air jordans at walls or checking microphones. Make eye contact with you audience. Draw them into you by smiling or telling them what to do.