1
Why and when did journalistic objectivity arise?
Perhaps no question is as central to an understanding of objectivity in journalism than that of its origins. Objectivity in journalism cannot be traced to a single âmagic momentâ (Schudson 2001: 167). Media historians have put âgreat manâ versions of history into disrepute, questioning the fetish of singular origins (Winston 1999). Nevertheless, âwhy and when did objectivity arise?â remains an essential context question without which our understanding of objectivity in journalism will lack a link to history and culture. However, the question of origins is a challenging one, both on the level of the factors driving the development of objectivity and also the dating of objectivity. This chapter teases out the debates around these two core issues.
What follows draws extensively on the work of James W. Carey, Michael Schudson and Daniel Schiller, as some of the foremost historians of objectivity in the US. But it also weaves into the discussion significant work by Stuart Allan in News Culture (2004); Stephen J. A. Ward in The Invention of Journalism Ethics: The Path to Objectivity and Beyond (2004); Richard L. Kaplan in Politics and the American Press: The Rise of Objectivity, 1865â1920 (2002); Gerald J. Baldasty in The Commercialization of News in the Nineteenth Century (1992); and Robert A. Hackett and Yuezhi Zhao in Sustaining Democracy? Journalism and the Politics of Objectivity (1998), all of which engage deeply, and often divergently, with the same research questions even if their projects are different.
The drivers of journalistic objectivity
Objectivity in journalism emerges out of a complex of factors. A full account of these factors immediately confronts the two key issues discussed in detail in the introduction, the difficulty of studying objectivity in journalism across cultures, and the treatment of the US case.
Several arguments have been put forward to explain the development of journalistic objectivity in the US and beyond. Building on Allan (2010: 28) and Michael Schudson (1978), the key arguments that will be discussed here have to do with professionalization, technology, commercialization and politics. None stands as a clear master-narrative and all of them have been contested, or subject to further work. These arguments work in quite general, deterministic and abstract ways; and in that sense they have limitations. Nevertheless, they remain useful in forming a broader picture of the different forces at work in the development of objectivity in journalism.
While my focus in the discussion that follows will be on the US case, which has been explored in depth by media historians, each of these âdriversâ point to broader research trajectories that can be drawn on to open up wider analysis of objectivity in journalism, regardless of national context. It should be stressed I am not advocating a point of view that objectivity was an âinevitable outcomeâ of any of these particular forces (Schudson & Anderson 2009: 92). Rather, surveying the different arguments allows us to engage with the complex forces influencing journalistic objectivity, and to explore their interaction.
The professionalization argument
This argument sees professionalization of reporting as a key factor in the emergence and development of objectivity. As such it is tied in with standards of good practice and the status of journalism. Professionalism and professionalization are themselves large areas of study. Surveying the literature, Michael Schudson and Chris Anderson chart an important disciplinary orientation away from âtraitsâ-based research that seeks to determine whether journalism is or is not a profession on the grounds of its knowledge base and area of expertise, towards an approach that looks at the conditions and circumstances âin which journalists attempt to turn themselves into professional peopleâ (2009: 90).
The professionalization argument is often localized around the state of reporting in major US cities in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (see Baldasty 1992: 89). As journalists came to consider themselves professionals, the issue of an appropriate model of professionalism arose, with objectivity playing a key role (Janowitz 1975: 618). âBest practiceâ suggested the reporter presents the facts, preferably covering all sides of the issue, allowing the reader to decide (although there is disagreement over whether this represents the highest standard of professional performance; Carey 1997 [1969]: 138).
The argument that objectivity emerges and develops through professionalization is powerful because it helps explain the nature of modern journalism, but also the context in which it operates. Professionalization is considered a pre-requisite for, but also the goal of, debates around objectivity. Another strong aspect of the professionalization argument is that it foregrounds issues of occupational and industrial uplift and integrity: it allows us to think of objectivity in progressive ethical terms such as virtue, standards and excellence. It permits us to focus on issues of education. It also works in relation to concepts of objectivity as an ideal (Schudson 1978; see below).
Carey provides one of the most useful characterizations of the professionalization argument in the following passage:
Objective reporting became the fetish of American journalism in the period of rapid industrialisation. Originally the development of this form of journalism was grounded in a purely commercial motive: the need of the mass newspaper to serve politically heterogeneous audiences without alienating any significant segment of the audience. The practice apparently began with the wire services. . . . This commercially grounded strategy of reporting was subsequently rationalized into a canon of professional competence and ideology of professional responsibility. (Carey 1997 [1969]: 137â8)
Servicing âpolitically heterogeneous audiencesâ demanded a radically new commercial approach that was (for Carey) subsequently rationalized into an image of the professional (see also Bennett 1988: 123).
Why did this rewriting occur? Carey suggests that in the late nineteenth century reporters were trained largely under an apprenticeship system and reporting was seen as a trade. Professionalization was part of an effort by journalists to gain increased status, credibility and, indeed, trust. The pay-off for professionalization can be seen as social, but also corporate. Objectivity marked the work of journalists as organizationally distinctive, more highly developed; news was special, and different from advertising (which itself forms a kind of news). Objectivity arises in this work situation as what has been described as a kind of contract: it is a âbargainâ in which âjournalists gain their independence and in exchange they give up their voiceâ (Rosen 1993: 48; see also Hallin & Mancini 2004: 221; Gans 1979: 183; McDonald 1975 [1971]: 69).
With college training, journalists had greater appreciation and awareness of scientific values and developed what could be seen as a worship of facts (Schudson 1978: 68). Objectivity at this time was sweeping across a number of academic disciplines, and justifying journalism in social science terms thus proved attractive as a means of gaining institutional legitimacy (Beasley & Mirando 2005: 184). The emergence of journalism schools cemented the link between an emphasis on facts and science and new models of journalism. As Carey puts it, the âconventions of objective reporting were institutionalized when they were developed in universities beginning in the 1890sâ (1997 [1969]: 138). In a unique alignment of interests, âthe press moved to show the public that it was serious about improving practices by bolstering professional training and enacting codes of ethicsâ, while educators sought to meet the demand for âreporters who were ethically sensitive as well as technically proficientâ by focusing on journalistic ethics (FerrĂ© 2009: 19; see also Vos 2012). In this manner, objectivity was fast-tracked as a way to characterize the profession, as well as indicating a point of mutual interest for practitioners and educationalists.
One of the benefits of the professionalization thesis is that it links objectivity to broader social change: firstly, to what James W. Carey terms the âcommunications revolutionâ and, secondly, to the rise of professions. In relation to the former, Carey sees this âas a revolution in commercial and popular culture which reorganized the basis on which art, information, and culture were made availableâ (1997 [1969]: 129). It leads to the rise of a national media and a âmassâ audience but also the emergence of a ânew social roleâ which Carey terms the âprofessional communicatorâ. âThe professional communicator takes the messages, ideas, and purposes of a source and converts them into a symbolic strategy designed to inform or persuade an ultimate audienceâ (1997 [1969]: 133). Advertising executives, public relations practitioners and journalists all qualify as professional communicators, albeit with different degrees of professional autonomy and freedom.
In terms of the rise of the professions, in the late 1890s to early 1900s, US society, especially the new middle classes, underwent a widespread professionalization (Wiebe 1967: 127; see also Bledstein 1976). The growth of university education in journalism, and rise of professional associations, gave further impetus to professionalization (Carey 1997 [1969]: 136). Skills and cultivated talent became the new basis for social order. With professionalization came the need to define a field and assume authority or control over a discipline.
One significant aspect of the professionalization argument is that it can be studied focusing on positive, but also negative impacts. Indeed, Careyâs account of professionalization is important precisely because he points to its adverse effects.
It is important to recognize that the canons of objective reporting turn the journalist into a professional communicator, from an independent observer and critic to a relatively passive link in a communication chain that records the passing scene for audiences. (1997 [1969]: 138)
For Carey, objectivity impacts on the literary and interpretive aspects of journalistic work. He writes of a âconversion downwardsâ whereby the ârole is de-intellectualized and technicalizedâ into a mere reporter (1997 [1969]: 137). Objectivity compromises the independence of the journalist, giving new prominence to sources. This leads the reporter into a subservient and technical âlapdogâ relationship to political and corporate authority (Kaplan 2002: 193). For Daniel C. Hallin and Paolo Mancini, the dominant form of professionalism in North America has a particular impact on the autonomy of the journalist. Objectivity has a key place in placing boundaries on autonomy in a way that is not replicated in the UK, for example (2004: 226).
There are three main weaknesses in the professionalization argument. The first is its explanatory power. As Dan Schiller notes, âjournalistic professionalism can not constitute a sufficient explanation for the appearance of the conventionâ (1981: 3). Which is to say that commercial, technological and political factors are equally important to the development of objectivity.
This is related to a second issue, raised by Schudson, which is that journalism is an âuninsulated professionâ lacking the forms of advanced training and social control that other professions use to protect their autonomy. Unlike professions such as medicine or law, journalism is a difficult occupation to âclose offâ intellectually and in practice, and it has an unusually âpublicâ relationship to the client and to politics. This âuninsulatedâ character impacts on the professional status of journalism, and constantly complicates professional aspiration.
A third issue with the professionalization argument is that it tends to treat the space of journalism as uniform: publishers, editors and reporters are seen more or less on equivalent terms, when in fact there exists significant levels of criticism and negotiation between these different actors in âthe professionâ (Tuchman 1972). There is a potentially wide gap between aspirational statements of codes of ethics and the lived reality of reporters and editors. In this respect, the professionalization argument requires a more critical account of labour politics. This is important, for example, to understand the 1930s when objectivity is linked to the struggle against unionization and organizational control. These conditions âgave publishers reason to promote the objectivity norm even if they had done little or nothing to invent itâ (Schudson 2001: 163; see also Morrison & Tremewan 1992: 124). Hallin and Mancini highlight how, in this context, âobjectivity provided a mechanism of control over journalistsâ (2004: 221).
The technology argument
Advocates of the technology argument see technology as a key causal factor in the development of objectivity in journalism. Technology has been an ever-present consideration for journalism. As Allan notes, âthe use of the steam press in the 1830s was followed by the introduction of the Hoe rotary press in 1846, thereby enabling the mass production of newspapers on a scale never seen beforeâ (2010: 35). Perhaps no technology has been given greater significance than the telegraph, which is closely intertwined with a shift in our understanding of communication and geography, the development of national railway systems, and the dissemination of market information and commercial news (Carey 1989: 201â30; Pray 1855: 364). Introduced in the 1840s, with the first inter-city experiments in wiring stories dating from 1844, the telegraph rapidly found a place in news transmission. The MexicanâAmerican War (1846â48) gave impetus to its use (Allan 1997: 305), as did the founding of the news cooperatives such as The Associated Press in 1946. For Donald L. Shaw, in a study of Wisconsin newspapers that is regarded as a keystone of the technology argument, âincreasing emphasis upon impartial gathering and reporting of newsâ and âgrowing independence from party controlâ correlate with âincreasing amounts of wire newsâ (1967: 4).
However, there is another layer of the technology argument, specifically focused on written language and the form of journalism itself. Indeed, perhaps one of the most valuable aspects of the technological thesis is to encourage reflection on our understanding of the form of the news (see Conboy 2010: 137â8). The wire services supposedly led to a lean, unadorned âobjectiveâ style; a form of writing stripped of locality, regional touches and colloquialisms. This is understandable given that the price per character was one cent (Kielbowicz 1987: 35). Wires employed factual, denotative and functional language, leaning towards the inverted pyramid form. Andrew Porwancher suggests that âbecause telegraph lines were expensive and often failed in mid-report, journalists transmitted the most important information first so that their papers could still print the stories even if they failed to receive all of them. Editors also preferred the standardized format of the inverted pyramid because they could easily rework an articleâ (2011: 191).
Carey argues âthe telegraph reworked the nature of written languageâ but also âthe nature of awareness itselfâ (1989: 210). Over time, our sense of the facts became linked to this informational form of language, so that we know âthe factsâ mainly through this âcodeâ. As a result, the language of news becomes standardized, which is to say that different styles of reportage and storytelling no longer counted for news in the same way. âBy elevating objectivity and facticity into cardinal principles, the penny press abandoned explanation as a primary goalâ (Carey 1997 [1986]: 161). This style has limits: it restricts the extent to which one can express a perspective in the story, or explore the world as an essayist might (see White 2000). It sets up explanation and analysis as separate activities and, in doing so, dampens reflection on alternative framings of the story, as well as overt reflection on factors such as ideology, class or politics.
Careyâs work is commonly associated with the technology argument. Although he is no straightforward advocate, his research into journalism history, technology and communication takes him deeply into the topic. Carey highlights how the wire services stripped the local, the regional and the colloquial away from journalism, demanding something closer to the scientific or informational mode of journalism. He famously states âthe origins of objectivity may be sought, therefore, in the necessity of stretching language in space over the long lines of Western Unionâ (1989: 210).
There are risks with a technologically deterministic account of social change; namely that it can discount other factors. One might think that the speed of information being sent over a news wire would lead to a new emphasis on timely information, the latest news. But it was the penny press that promoted the move towards the daily news, and a focus on timeliness and breaking stories as a selling point. It was through the penny press that all news started to be treated as though it came out of a stock market ticker machine. As Carey puts it, âthe telegraph cemented everything the âpenny pressâ set in motionâ (1997 [1986]: 160). Nevertheless, while we should remain wary of technological determinism â and indeed some have called for a re-examination of the idea that objective reporting was the result of increased use of telegraph and news wires (Stensaas 1986: 58) â the technology argument highlights often-neglected organizational arrangements, such as the way correspondents become âstringersâ who supply bare facts, and issues to do with the increased volume of news (see Carey 1997 [1986]: 160â1).
Some caveats should be placed around the technology argument. The first has to do with the assumptions regarding the technology. Early services were not restricted to the telegraph, but combined pony express, stagecoach and telegraph (Pyle 2005). Richard L. Kielbowicz describes the telegraph evocatively as a âtangle of technologiesâ (1987: 34). âEven in the face of instantaneous communication by telegraph, the comparatively primitive postal service continued to be of great value as a news relayerâ (1987: 26). The language of dispatches could vary depending on the rate and time of day, from simply dropping common words such as âtheâ, to inverted pyramids, to in fact adding details (Schiller 1981: 5). Indeed, biased and false dispatches were known to be sent (Schiller 1981: 4; see also Sinclair 1919: 150â75). On top of this, it was accepted journalistic practice of the era, as Edwin Shuman explains in one of the first handbooks on journalism, to turn bare announcements into articles by supplying âthe missing details from ⊠[oneâs] imaginationâ (1894: 120). In other words, the introduction of the telegraph did not occur in a vacuum and did not lead to a total uniformity in style and format.
A second caveat has to do with the risk of confusing the technology with the development of cooperative newsgathering associations, the history and development of which are complex (see Shaw 1967: 9). For Edwin Eme...