Objective journalism is dead
After spending the lead up to the US election on the campaign trail, Australian editor and journalist Aleks Vickovich argues there is now no question: objective journalism as we knew it, is dead. In this guest post, he explains why the role of media as an impartial observer is redundant and the significant implications this has for media businesses.
Having spent the past 18 months in the United States as a contributing editor for a number of financial services publications, my focus was largely on covering American business communities and representing the media brands at events and conferences. But as a curious journalist with a lifelong interest in politics, I also kept a steady eye on the presidential election and American democracy more broadly, including spending the final months of my US journey out on the campaign trail.
Putting the actual politics of the election to one side – as there is definitely no shortage of commentary out there on this front – the more interesting aspect of the race from our perspective is what it has meant for the future of media production and distribution.
Having followed as closely as anyone would care to without suffering severe mental ill health, my conclusion is that the election has some significant implications for those in the media business.
The challenge I put to you – and all providers & consumers of media when this is said:
“focus on data and on successfully distributing targeted and opinionated content to important niche audiences is a recipe for success ”
… is this: When individuals can develop their own echo chamber “for free” by consuming the internet, should the role of of “big banner” media be the same?
Opinion is news and medias role is to shape opinion. Oh dear.
First question: where’s the money? None of this analysis indicates there is money in foghorn journalism. Fox makes money out of telling people what they want to hear, but that’s hardly influence.
Second question: what does polling have to do with it?
News media pay for polling in order to have action in their political reporting. So what?
If you think the NY Times and Washington Post are not partisan you need to lay off the drugs.
I think it would be fair to say Objective journalism has been dead for many decades when it comes to News Corp. Opinion replaced facts a long time ago but just as importantly, editing out the news that does not fit its agenda has arguably been its biggest crime.
This “‘narrowcasting’ approach, providing targeted [propaganda] information to niche audiences in their own language” has been part of a political agenda for years and is transparently non-objective. In a race to the bottom of the barrel News Corp have lead the charge and we are now all paying the price.
Objective journalism? Never was never will be. We all have confirmation bias which means there can be no objectivity in any journalist’s report. That doesn’t even take into account the bias or agenda of the media owners.
Some facts wouldn’t go astray here: the New York Times subscription base actually grew tenfold, adding 132,000 digital and print subscribers (mostly digital), after the election. The Atlantic saw subs increase 160% post election. The Washington Post also saw a “steady increase in subscriptions” over 2016 and The Economist’s subscriber base has grown too.
Sources: Nieman Lab, Fortune, CNBC
Also the old Lippman idea of objectivity has always been a contentious topic in journalism. Steven Maras’ great book Objectivity in Journalism will give you a good history of the debates, and shows how objectivity’s being reinterpreted now in ideas like fact-checking, transparency and trust.
This writer is wrong on so many points. Subscriptions to the New York Times didn’t “plummet” after Trump was elected — they increased dramatically: http://cnb.cx/2fya6Jg. And the publisher of the Washington Post announced after the election that the company would be profitable for the first time in years, thanks in part to a 75 per cent jump in digital subscriptions: http://bit.ly/1NkwpYj.
Meanwhile most of the ‘new media’ sites this writer heralds as the future either barely break even — Salon, HuffPost — or barely qualify as opinion, let alone journalism. Breitbart News last month fabricated a story about an angry mob of 1000 Muslims burning down a church in Germany – presumably this is a great example of “providing targeted information to niche audiences in their own language”.
Maybe Mumbrella should employ a fact-checker — you know, like the ones that some of those old-hat “objective” media organisations have.
1. Write article about how journalism is no longer about facts.
2. Contradict reality in said article by inventing facts to support your argument (e.g. NYT subscriptions “plummet” when in fact they’ve grown tremendously)
3. “Objective journalism is dead”, I guess.
Nice attempt at thinkfluencing though.
Please don’t ever use the “word” thinkfluencing again.
The world thanks you.
Facts seldom tell the whole story, Politicians never tell the whole story, internet is today’s electronic version of the early newspapers, which were filled with ads for hair restorer, vitality pills, and battery powered underwear.
Good journalism has always been with us, it is a matter of human dignity. There will always be a group of people who will sell their souls, who will “brown nose” for perceived advantage, who will grandstand for the benefit of others or for themselves.
Good Journalism consists of adhering to the facts, checking the substance and the source, sorting the wheat from the chaff, and finding the bravery to stand alone, if necessary, and challenge anything that stands or leans against what most people would consider intelligent and moral human decency.
I have no faith in god, little faith in politicians, and a cynical view of big business, but I have a great respect for good journalism and for good journalists. The world has been shaped and reshaped by politicians and armies and natural forces, but journalists have predicted some, reported nearly all, and in some cases, shaped the world more effectively and with much less heartache.
“Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed:
everything else is public relations.”
The industry version: “Everything else is Campaign Brief”
Mumbrella, certainly do appear to practice journalism, which is great.
Wow, what a load of tripe. Objective journalism doesn’t exist now because it never did (or will). The observer necessarily influences what is observed. Get some quantum physics into ya.
More than ever, digital media has splintered the vague entity that passes as informed journalism into tribes. You want your lefty warm inner glow satisfied you go to the Guardian, you want your rightest commerce is king feelings realised you go to the Australian. You want both sides explained and a fully informed conclusion reached … well, good luck finding that.
We look to have our own biases satisfied and the internet has made that easier than ever before – but the more we’re able to find out, the less we’re liable to look as we’re safely bunkered down in our little ideological hidey-holes. There might be a billion mega-mouths, influencers and BS merchants out there spruiking everything from political punditry to yummy mummy wisdom but most of them say nothing new, let along worth looking at or listening to. Kinda sad, but there’s always cute cat videos.
Another polarising article written to generate comment.
I’ve fallen for it.
Wikipedia is no longer using the Daily Mail as a source: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia-bans-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website
Objective media is not dead. People are becoming increasingly annoyed.
It was probably 10 years ago when Rupert Murdoch addressed his editors and said that newspapers need their own personality. Readers who seek the facts need only be made aware they exist to seek them out eg “New Report says Australia Needs Coal [link]” . Anything more than that is either summary or opinion. Of course many readers want a summary or opinion.
The question of whether falling print subscriptions whilst increasing on-line subscriptions is a sign of health or decline doesn’t matter. It is a bit like the saying that a letter of complaint is equivalent to 10 phone calls. Whether it is the NYT or SMH the issue is falling revenue. No company can exist for long without revenue. They risk becoming the equivalent of the Guardian, unprofitable and telling a narrow readership what they want to hear (and so having no influence)
The biggest two newspapers in Australia the Herald-Sun and Daily Telegraph maintain their readership on large doses of sport from the front page to the back. Of course, sports coverage by its nature is largely opinion but it is likely that only publications like these will be able to influence public opinion in political or other areas because only these will have a broad enough readership.
Seriously ???
You say you work as a “contributing editor for a number of financial services publications” and you’re only NOW ready to admit that what proclaims to be independent journalism is anything but ??
No one picks up a financial newspaper or magazine expecting it to be anything but selective cheerleading and blackballing of financial policies and business activities according to vested interests.
Regarding the current affairs of east coast Australia, News, Fairfax and the ABC collectively more or less define truth. Add Seven West and Nine and most of what most people think about Australia is covered. This doesn’t change if any of these are profitable or not, as long as they keep the (metaphorical) presses running.
If “you want both sides explained and a fully informed conclusion reached” (as zumabeach is looking for), then I suggest turning to AAP. Having the News and Fairfax press as dual masters keeps it fairly centrist. If/when Fairfax is taken over by Nine, I fear most for AAP.
The most objective journalism is always composed with at least one objective. People have always wanted media that shared their objectives. In the immediate past, there was lots of competition for reaching similar objectives. Now every possible objective is fought for by many players, though many Australia-centric ones are much less funded than they used to be.