The objectivity trap

I haven't had the opportunity to weigh in on the ever-maddening actions over at NPR. which when its ethicists aren't fervently debating how many angels can fit on the head of a pin are trying to decide who to fire -- an opera host, for example -- for coming to close to the fire that is Occupy Wall Street. The bizzaro world of NPR has achieved one good thing, however -- it's triggered a sensible debate on the new journalistic ethic for the 21st Century.

At least some people are finally seeing the objectivity trap for what it is:

That ought to be the pitch that newspapers and public radio stations make to their audience. It might go something like this: "Yes, the field of journalism attracts more liberals than conservatives, more Occupy Wall Street participants than Tea Party ralliers, more urban dwellers than rural Americans, more college graduates than people without degrees, more Democrats than Republicans, more English majors than math majors, more secular people than religious people -- and although we value diversity of thought, experience and world view on our staff, the core of our value proposition is that we're accurate in our reporting, fair-minded in setting forth arguments and perspectives even when we don't agree with them, transparent about who we are, attune to our biases and constantly trying to account for them, and insistent that we be judged by our output, not our political or religious or ideological identity, or what we do on weekends. Judge us by our work, and if you challenge it in good faith we'll engage you."

It may seem like a good idea to avoid the "perception of bias" by insisting that media employees hide who they are from the audience. Perhaps it was once even tenable. It no longer is. To build your credibility on viewlessness is to concede, every time an employee of yours is shown to be a sentient, opinionated person, that your credibility has taken a hit. To tout and enforce your viewlessness is to hold your own reputation hostage to reality; it makes your credibility, the most valuable thing you have, vulnerable to every staffer's Tweet, or incriminating Facebook photograph, or inane James O'Keefe hidden video sting operation. She claims to be neutral, but look, while out at a dinner with friends we caught her on camera saying that she thinks Obama is a better president than was Bush. See! She was hiding her liberal views from us all along!

My friend Dan Gillmor also has a great post about this over at the Guardian -- you should read the whole thing, but this part is important:

If I were making rules for journalists, I'd make them simpler. They would be: 1) Be human. 2) Be honorable. 3) Don't embarrass us.

Today's news organisations obsess over the third of those rules, and disallow the first. They end up with the worst of all worlds: mistrusted anyway by the public, while their journalists chafe at the well-meaning but bizarre instructions to shed their humanity in service of the journalism.

For a special bonus, read Jay Rosen's "note to my conservative friends."