Less “Objectivity”, More Trust?: Downie Op-ed in WaPo

This is the second post of three on media.  The first post, Monday, was on Gerth’s piece in the Columbia Journalism Review that raised issues of whether the Times was following its own rules, and how such outlets might increase trust- via various forms of accountability and transparency.  It looks like Gerth’s piece was posted on January 30.

In this post, we’ll take a look at a WaPo opinion piece by a former executive editor  “Newsrooms that move beyond “objectivity” can build trust.” It also appears to have been posted on January 30.

But increasingly, reporters, editors and media critics argue that the concept of journalistic objectivity is a distortion of reality. They point out that the standard was dictated over decades by male editors in predominantly White newsrooms and reinforced their own view of the world. They believe that pursuing objectivity can lead to false balance or misleading “bothsidesism” in covering stories about race, the treatment of women, LGBTQ+ rights, income inequality, climate change and many other subjects. And, in today’s diversifying newsrooms, they feel it negates many of their own identities, life experiences and cultural contexts, keeping them from pursuing truth in their work.

As a veteran of many TSW discussions, I agree that individual and diverse perspectives are important in the newsroom, as everywhere else.  And that is how we jointly make a world, by sharing our own truths and seeking the outlines of the bigger truth, as in the old blind men and the elephant story.  As Wikipedia says, in that ancient parable, the moral is that humans have a tendency to claim absolute truth based on their limited, subjective experience as they ignore other people’s limited, subjective experiences which may be equally true.

Let’s parse out the last sentence.  The subject seems to be “the concept of journalistic objectivity” which “negates many of their own identities, life experiences and cultural contexts, keeping them from pursuing truth in their work.” So it sounds like he is arguing:

  1. We should trust what  journalists say.
  2. Journalists no longer need to explain other peoples’ points of view because
  3. Their truth is more true than other peoples’ truth.

And we know that because they earnestly believe it to be so.

Sorry, this does not build my trust.

Then Downie goes on to add some more practical suggestions that might help build trust:

We urge news organizations to, first, strive not just for accuracy based on verifiable facts but also for truth — what Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward have called “the best obtainable version of the truth.” This means original journalism that includes investigating and reporting on all aspects of American life.

Newsroom staff diversity should reflect the communities being covered — not just gender and ethnic diversity but also diversity of economic, educational, geographic and social backgrounds. Inclusive newsrooms should encourage their journalists to speak up and be heard by their colleagues and leaders in making decisions about coverage.

News media should also be as transparent as possible about their newsgathering decisions and processes. When possible, they should hire or designate an editor to field and act on reader complaints and questions.

Responsible news organizations need to develop core values by having candid, inclusive and open conversations. Making these values public could well forge a stronger connection between journalists and the public.

I think “making these values public” but more importantly “living up to those values” would forge a stronger connection with the public.  I think it would be helpful if they would provide a list of “expectations of reporting,” and then have a person designated to help readers track accountability (“complaints” have a negative connotation).  For example, I had never heard of some of the NY Times requirements Gerth wrote about.  I’d suggest an Office of Journalistic Accountability, at least for the WaPo and the NYT.  It seems to me that in terms of equity, there is an argument to be made that those whose profession includes holding others accountable should have their own public processes for others to hold them accountable. Sauce for the goose and all that.

Many of us have had the experience of being interviewed by reporters (not always coastal) who have already decided what the story is and don’t want to hear your perspective unless it fits into the pre-existing narrative.  We easily see the difference between what they are given and what they publish. Nice try, but at least in our world, it has nothing to do with negating anyone’s “own identities, life experiences and cultural contexts, keeping them from pursuing truth in their work.”  It seems to have to do with finding the shortest distance between the observed facts and the preferred narrative.
This all reminds me of a Stephen R. Covey quote, but I’ll paraphrase it:
“You can’t redefine your way out of a problem you behaved your way into.”
Next post: third of three on media. “Great reporting and a business problem.”

26 thoughts on “Less “Objectivity”, More Trust?: Downie Op-ed in WaPo”

  1. There are many different types of stories in the media, which then affects how it should/may be told. There is straight up reporting, investigative reporting, human interest stories, opinion pieces, etc. The elephant in the room not mentioned is how to deal with disinformation, misinformation, hate speech and calls for violence or other unlawful acts? And how do you deal with situations where the information someone is giving you is important to write about, but if there is even a whiff of being able to identify that person, that person’s job or life may be in jeopardy? These issue have always challenged the industry, but I would argue they have become more extreme.

    I like the IDEA of an Office of Journalistic Accountability, but who would run it? What kind of power would it have? And it would obviously need to reach much wider than NYT and WaPo otherwise it would be meaningless. Do you think the consumers of Fox News would care?

    “You can’t redefine your way out of a problem you behaved your way into.” Our politicians do this, or try to do this, all the time.

    Reply
    • Anonymous, I think to some extent “disinformation” and “misinformation” are in the eye of the beholder. And describing things that way tend to cut off information exchange.
      Calls for violence and unlawful acts are not part of most the news nor is hate speech.
      As to identifying people whose life/job may be in danger, I don’t mention peoples’ names most of the time. If it were up to me I wouldn’t have published Garrity’s op-ed slurring working BLM employees either.
      I am happy telling stories without names because I think people trust me, and those who don’t I’m not worried about.
      I was thinking that those two specific newspapers would each have an office of journalistic accountability because they believe they are even-handed and important in the national discussion and specifically messed up this very important story. Establishing such an office would send the message (like a 90 day standdown and report) that getting things right is important to us.

      Reply
      • Sorry, I must not of put my name on the previous comment.

        There are many, many examples of disinformation and while there are some examples some may say are in the eye of the beholder, there are many that are straight lies intended to mislead. Banon spoke directly to this with, “The Democrats don’t matter,” Bannon told Lewis. “The real opposition is the media. And the way to deal with them is to flood the zone with shit.” Misinformation, one can argue is unintentional, but reporting on misinformation can have the unintended consequence of spreading it. I’m not necessarily arguing against reporting on misinformation and disinformation, but there are risks with doing so which have been well spelled out in some academic papers. It’s also why there are fact check sites.

        The media has often quoted people who have made calls for violence. Once again, I’m not saying this shouldn’t be reported, but it may have unintended consequences that lead to stochastic violence. Here is one of countless articles on stochastic violence. The thing to remember is that often Tweets by politicians are reported on, so it may start on social media but then ends up in mainstream media. And, once again, there are many discussions about how the media should deal with this.

        Reply
        • FWIW, I have degrees in forestry and journalism and as a journalist I’ve focused on forestry, mostly, for 35 years or so.

          Here’s are some recent articles not related to forestry, but that illustrate how a lack of objectivity (and sound journalism) erodes trust.

          “Single-use coffee pods have surprising environmental benefits over other brewing methods.” Subtitle: “A new analysis finds that using pods can produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions than brewing traditional filter coffee.” — The Washington Post, January 20, 2023.

          “Study perks up maligned coffee pods’ environmental reputation.” Greenwire, January 23, 2023.

          But this NPR article takes another look:

          “Yeah, actually, your plastic coffee pod may not be great for the climate.” — NPR News, January 21, 2023. It noted that “…the article isn’t a formal study that has been peer-reviewed, which means it hasn’t been vetted yet by other experts in the field.”

          And: “a peer-reviewed paper from 2021 found the complete opposite: that coffee pods account for more emissions than other ways of making coffee, because of greenhouse gases from producing the pods’ packaging and dealing with the waste.”

          Another and more interesting excerpt from the NPR article:

          “Media scholars who study climate change aren’t surprised by the hot takes on the article.

          “Headlines that say single-use coffee pods may be ‘environmentally friendly’ have a lot of allure,” says Max Boykoff, a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado Boulder.

          “Novelty can really drive a news story,” Boykoff says. “Something that could be seen as counterintuitive, that would grab people’s attention.”

          Such “hot takes” on climate-change studies, where journalists don’t dig into studies and claims for perspective and focus on sensational headlines, are all too common. The same is true with stories about forest management.

          What to do? I’ve tried letters to editors and rebullats via op-eds, but haven’t had one published. I’ve reached out to reporters and editors and occasionally have had a response. One said she would look at a follow-up article to clarify the issue, but didn’t write one. This is frustrating, but such efforts are important. Even if there’s no apparent result, reporters and editors may see their stories in a new light.

          Reply
          • Steve, I think you just did a good job exposing one of the main problems with inaccurate reporting on scientific topics: many journalists aren’t scientifically literate. I always appreciate journalists with science backgrounds because they generally know how to read scientific reports and research, and know how to ask good questions. The other things media outlets will do, is bait people with “hot take” headlines, and address “grayness” of a study deeper in the article. By that time, many readers have stopped reading.

            Reply
        • I don’t understand. I think when we use the word “lying”there is the intention of misleading. I think that’s really different from providing different information based on different sources and experiences. As to “stochastic violence”

          ‘Stochastic’ means “random” or “involving chance or probability.” ‘Stochastic terrorism’ has been defined as the use of language “to incite random actors to carry out violent or terrorist acts that are statistically predictable but individually unpredictable.”

          That definition makes no sense to me. Using overly mathematical language for simple concepts does not help with facilitating open discussion among citizens. In fact, quite the opposite, IMHO.

          I am for the Brandenburg test.https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brandenburg_test
          Someone will have to explain to me (and to the Court, I guess, at some point) why it worked before but is no longer working.

          Reply
          • Sharon, I’ll keep this short. If you have a desire to learn more, here is a decent paper on the subject of stochastic terrorism. It is a term that was/is being used among some in Homeland Security, which is where I first learned about it, but I understood the human behavior well before I had heard the term. The Brandenburg Test is fine in a court of law, but the reality of how and why humans behave the way they do goes way beyond the courts. Some have considered this idea a media ethics question as to whether the media should quote politicians and other influencers who make statements that could lead to stochastic terrorism. If, when and how that would be done is a big question. https://www.universiteitleiden.nl/binaries/content/assets/customsites/perspectives-on-terrorism/2021/issue-5/amman-and-meloy.pdf

            Reply
        • The first article says..
          “Stochastic terrorism has been defined as the incitement of a violent act through public demonization of a group or individual.” It seems to me that many things politicians say do in fact demonize a group the other political party. And in fact, violent acts have been incentivized via that kind of discourse. I for one would be quite happy for demonization of groups or individuals to stop.
          But who would we trust to apply that even-handedly? Oh, some AI app.. but who programs it, and will anyone human check on it..?
          Regulating speech is difficult, and runs up against the Constitution. OTOH if media folks feel like not quoting disparaging speech, for whatever reason, even-handedly, that would be fine with me.

          Reply
  2. “When possible, they should hire or designate an editor to field and act on reader complaints and questions. Responsible news organizations need to develop core values by having candid, inclusive and open conversations.” Interesting fact is that both the Washington Post and New York Times had in-house ombudsman – internal critics who would report to the public on issues of journalistic integrity, objectivity and adherence to facts. Between 2013-2017 both papers fired or got rid of their ombudsman, in both cases saying they were going to leave it to their readers. The NYT still lacks an ombudsman from my quick search while the WaPo appears to have renewed the position in 2021. As I recall from the time, the ombudsman did their job, the owners/editors were not comfortable with their critiques and out the door they went.

    Reply
    • So that reminds me.. reporter Matt Taibi wrote more on this on his substack…
      “I will finish with one quick example of the declining importance of journalistic ethics. It involves the standards editor of the NYT. That person used to be on the masthead, the hallowed ground for the most important and senior managers of the newsroom. Today, the standards editor is not among the 12 people listed on the masthead for the news side of the paper.”

      One of the people in the comments asked what a “standards editor” does, or did. I didn’t know either. So it seems like you need to have 1) processes to ensure accountability and 2) explain to people how their system works. Which seems ironic for a business focused on watchdoggery, accountability (of others) and… communication.

      Reply
      • Another case: You may recall reading or hearing reports of how trees “talk” to, cooperate, and protect each other via underground networks. Suzanne Simard is a proponent of the idea — she wrote the 2022 book, “Finding the Mother Tree.” Various news media ran with the story. For example:

        NPR: “Trees Talk To Each Other. ‘Mother Tree’ Ecologist Hears Lessons For People, Too”
        https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/05/04/993430007/trees-talk-to-each-other-mother-tree-ecologist-hears-lessons-for-people-too

        NY Times: “The Social Life of Forests: Trees appear to communicate and cooperate through subterranean networks of fungi. What are they sharing with one another?”
        https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/12/02/magazine/tree-communication-mycorrhiza.html

        Now, a study looks at the issue:

        Nature Ecology & Evolution: “Positive citation bias and overinterpreted results lead to misinformation on common mycorrhizal networks in forests.”

        Not open access, unfortunately: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-023-01986-1

        But the abstract tells the story:

        A common mycorrhizal network (CMN) is formed when mycorrhizal fungal hyphae connect the roots of multiple plants of the same or different species belowground. Recently, CMNs have captured the interest of broad audiences, especially with respect to forest function and management. We are concerned, however, that recent claims in the popular media about CMNs in forests are disconnected from evidence, and that bias towards citing positive effects of CMNs has developed in the scientific literature. We first evaluated the evidence supporting three common claims. The claims that CMNs are widespread in forests and that resources are transferred through CMNs to increase seedling performance are insufficiently supported because results from field studies vary too widely, have alternative explanations or are too limited to support generalizations. The claim that mature trees preferentially send resources and defence signals to offspring through CMNs has no peer-reviewed, published evidence. We next examined how the results from CMN research are cited and found that unsupported claims have doubled in the past 25 years; a bias towards citing positive effects may obscure our understanding of the structure and function of CMNs in forests. We conclude that knowledge on CMNs is presently too sparse and unsettled to inform forest management.

        Reply
  3. There are many different types of stories in the media, which then affects how it should/may be told. There is straight up reporting, investigative reporting, human interest stories, opinion pieces, etc. The elephant in the room not mentioned is how to deal with disinformation, misinformation, hate speech and calls for violence or other unlawful acts? And how do you deal with situations where the information someone is giving you is important to write about, but if there is even a whiff of being able to identify that person, that person’s job or life may be in jeopardy? These issue have always challenged the industry, but I would argue they have become more extreme.

    I like the IDEA of an Office of Journalistic Accountability, but who would run it? What kind of power would it have? And it would obviously need to reach much wider than NYT and WaPo otherwise it would be meaningless. Do you think the consumers of Fox News would care?

    Being a journalist is a difficult job. Short time lines, people who stonewall you, people pushing agendas, people who provide false information, etc, etc. Most media outlets don’t have the budget to employ a team of fact checkers. I tend to give journalists a break unless they obviously have an agenda. Some do, but in my experience of dealing with local, regional, national and international journalists, most don’t if you deal with the honestly and openly. Unfortunately, I have had multiple instances where the orders I was given from higher levels in the USFS was to not respond to journalists openly.

    “You can’t redefine your way out of a problem you behaved your way into.” Our politicians do this, or try to do this, all the time.

    Reply
  4. Great story! I’ve noticed a pronounced “return” within the USFS to a policy of not responding to direct inquiries. (I’m a legal academic writing a book about the National Forest System and the Service and I’ve frequently called on scientists at USFS, many of whom have been very kind and generous with their time; some of whom are clearly acting on not-so-direct orders to refer me to the “media” handlers.) I wonder if it also has to do with this trend in the media you trace or to something more akin to paranoia. I’m inclined to think it has multiple causes only some of them fixable. I, too, have had the experience you mention of being interviewed by a reporter at some larger corporatized media outlet and finding that what they use my words for bore almost no relation to what I said. Too much script and not enough reporting. But is this behind the turn within the USFS science ranks away from engaging with those who’d like to get the story straight? Sad if so.

    Reply
    • Jamie, from my experience, which ended four years ago when I retired as a public affairs specialist on a national forest, I would agree, in general, with your statement that the USFS has returned to a policy of not responding to direct inquiries. I think there are a few reasons, at least, for this. One, communications technology and the algorithms that allow for information gathering down to the tiniest newspapers that include digital editions means USFS employees can’t be quoted in the media without eyes at higher levels seeing it. Higher levels include both within the USFS and larger media outlets. Second, the USFS seems to always be looking over their shoulder to make sure nothing said to the media ends up as evidence in a lawsuit. Third, everything is now political all the way down to the ranger district level in the view of some higher ups in the agency. So now, at least when I left, every employee is instructed to direct journalists to public affairs specialists. That said, different regions, different forests and different research stations may have looser guidelines. Personally, I wanted specialists talking directly to the media, but only after I gave them a little guidance on how not to get in trouble.

      Reply
    • Your experience is very interesting… let me just share a few recent examples. Various public affairs folks are very helpful at directing me to helpful information even when they can’t say anything.. when something’s in litigation or might be.
      Then there is “politically sensitive”. Earlier this year working on Mature and Old Growth for some NGOs, the not- Research people would give me their information and the R&D folks I spoke with had the feeling they weren’t supposed to talk as it was too sensitive! So the opposite. As far as I could tell, the variation was due to different bosses saying different things in different chains of command.

      I have to confess, I didn’t encourage the Co Roadless staff to talk to the press. I think actually I told them “nothing good can come from talking to the press.” We had a great public affairs staff, so that helped also. But my experience was that various outlets had their minds made up.. and at its best would cause potential unnecessary drama. At the same time, at one Co Roadless public meeting, employees asked me to talk to some media folks who were only hearing one side of the story.

      It’s a tough road to navigate IMHO for public affairs folks and for employees with information, for sure. Not sure what can help.

      Reply
  5. So my comment on second article. I disagree that WaPo editor is saying you should trust us because our truth is better. He is saying simplistic standard of “objectivity” or “both sides” might be too simplistic. Journalists have biases and opinions. I learned that from my J school professors long ago. But need to strive for full story, fairness, accuracy as far as possible, all sides of complex issues (and in a short easy to read package I add). What is alarming to me is that so many so called “news outlets” and political opinion leaders seem to no longer care about truth. Simplistic lies or innuendos imitating business ads are much easier to spout but they are so damaging. I am sure you recall Sharon from your Forest Service how hard it was to explain a complex issue when the interest groups were spouting a narrow biased but simplistic “one side.” I think news media up against same problem with truth -skirting politicians and outright lying social media. It is sad.

    Reply
    • But all politicians have always been “truth-skirting” and people have lied via pamphlet or whatever existed way before social media. My admittedly glass half-full view on this is that social media has democratized info.. much like the printing press. We’ll get to a “new normal” at some point, but the previous holders of power are not ceding ground gracefully. It’s awkward and folks of all stripes will make mistakes along the way.
      When I think of social media like the Hotshot Wakeup or Wildfire Today, I think about how great it is that we can now learn from experts directly without a reportorial filter.

      Reply
      • You could be implying that experts are more trustworthy, but maybe you are just saying truth gets lost in translation.

        I guess I’ll ask you a question I asked someone else here (who didn’t answer), how do you decide who to trust? (And does that have anything to do with your own biases?) I saw a graphic yesterday that showed who trusted what media based on political affiliation. The closest thing to a “middle ground” in the sense of both greatest overall trust and least difference between the parties was PBS news. (Other than The Weather Channel.) But even that wasn’t close; the view of every media outlet was extremely polarized.

        Reply
        • I tell my Current Issues in Forest Resources students to be skeptical of all claims — even mine — and to look into the sources of information and to investigate alternative sources.

          “Most institutions demand unqualified faith; but the institution of science makes skepticism a virtue.” – Robert K. Merton, “one of the most influential sociologists of the 20th century,” according to the New York Times (in Merton’s obituary, February 24, 2003).

          Journalists also ought to be skeptics.

          Definition of skeptic: “A person who questions or doubts something (such as a claim or statement): a person who often questions or doubts things.” — http://www.merriam-webster.com

          Reply
        • That’s a great question, Jon! And I don’t trust PBS either, so there’s that.. let me think on that and write about my process and then we can discuss how other peoples’ processes work.

          Reply
        • I went looking for the graphic I mentioned, and need to correct myself a little. PBS is actually the 3rd most trusted, behind also the BBC. On polarization, it fares about as well as Fox, which is surprisingly middle of the road. This is in the second graphic, where the Wall Street Journal comes off looking pretty good. But the least polarizing are the most conservative news sources because nobody in either party trusts them. https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/04/05/trust-media-2022-where-americans-get-news-poll

          Reply
      • Sharon, as you know, talking/writing in absolutes is risky business, so, in my opinion, to say all politicians have always been “truth-skirting” is pushing the boundaries a bit. I appreciate your glass half-full view of social media, as there are many positive things about social media, but it also has been a very effective avenue for recruiting people into fringe groups, some of which are hate and violence oriented. I read a good deep dive analysis into this, an academic 100-pager out of Stanford, I think. I have it saved somewhere, but couldn’t find it in a quick search. Algorithms being used by various social media platforms can lead people to these groups. Prior to social media, many people who felt disenfranchised were isolated because it wasn’t easy to find “like-minded” people. The types of groups out there using these methods range from white supremacists to anti-government groups to eco-terrorists. News platform algorithms can also lead people to more and more extreme “news” sources. Basically, these algorithms are designed to reinforce confirmation bias of users. I understand and appreciate the intent of what you are saying, but I certainly wouldn’t call it “democratized info.” I’m not sure what the correct term would be.

        I’m not anti-social media at all, but for all its benefits, it sure has been a big disrupter in our society that I believe has increased violence and suicides. Suicide among youth ranging from 10-24 years-old has increased by 58% in less than two decades. While some of that is tied to isolation from Covid lockdowns, social media also seems to be playing a role.

        Reply
    • I think 1) they disagree about what the “truth” is.. and 2) there is little or no accountability for getting it wrong.
      But I think that this whole topic of trying to get at the truth, at least with our own tiny circle of topics, is worth the effort.

      Reply

Leave a Reply to Mike Cancel reply