jfififir' Th.

4-1

-nothing less- than profound

span; a,“ ram ,

OBJECTIVITY:

By David Deitch

THE American press is under attack from the Left, the Right and the harrassed mid- dle.» It needs reform and knows it, but structural changes will make a 'qualitative difference sufficient to insure the survival of news- papers as credible agents of information about the society in which they operate.

' V Structural changes are imperative be-

‘ cause the reforms now most often proposed '

do nothing except increase the existing fan- tastic level of journalistic self-conscious- ness. Newspaper managements and editors already get together frequently to discuss the shortcomings of their daily efforts;

' newspaper men already deliver scathing

critiques of their profession. For example, the monthly Journalism Review was in- itiated recently by Chicago journalists who had been unable to print the stories or make the reforms they felt were necessary to the well-being of their dailies. On the national level, a new Washington journal, Straus' Editor’s Report, has been formed to monitor theypress. ‘ .

However, all attempts thus far to ac- commodate newspapers to the needs of so- ciety have failed, and all the evalautions have turned“ out to be indexes of failure rather than progress toward some satis- factory result. Criticism that does not lead to structural change is simply an exercise in reformist frustration, and the effect has been that the press today is one of the least trusted of the country’s national institu- tions, public or private. Rightwing critcs complain that the papers undermine confi- dence in democratic institutions by striking at the government. The Left insists that, by adhering to so-called balanced report- ing, they in fact stabilize the worstfeat- was of an inequitable system. The confus- ed middle is rapidly losing its faith in the ability of the daily press to sustain the image of impartiality that newspaper man-

agements —- not readers — have demanded. I

It thus becomes obvious that thelpressfi will not begin to cope with its credibility , problem until.,newspaper imanagements vac- .1 knowledge that that mystifying standard, objectivity,” cannot be adequately defined 1

or’ achieved, that in fact it is pernicious to the society as well as to the institutions of journalism. This neutrality is demanded by newspaper administrators and editors, con;

"cerned that the" news content remain tight control; there is? no evidence that it 1.

serves a public mterest.

AT a time whenpeople are becoming :DOH- tically more aware, a newspaper loses cre-

dibility when readers believe themselves to;

be manipulated and propagandized onbe?

half of those.- who‘ dominate ,the political ,1 ' economy. It makes no difference how they. _ identify. those powers, or. whether their ‘ evaluation is right or stems from the wid- , enng circle of paranoia that seems endemic. . . to a highly centralized society. A commit»

ment to the notion of objectivity‘has, in effect become a sign of manipulation, whe- ther newspaper managements like itor not, and the way to deal with it is, toadmit

that the editorial function is inherentlyu’ biased, that reporters have, opinions of their ‘ ~ ‘ own, and that newspapers, like other large

inistitutions, are politcal entities.

There is nothing new about these con- cepts. Newspapers no less than universi- rtie‘s must be seen as instruments of ‘ either social change or stagnation. The European press has known this for a long time. Le Monde, widely regarded as one of the world’s greatest newspapers, is described by the Paris correspondent of The New York Times:

Unlike the American practice, there is no copy desk and no division of function

between copy editing and reporting. Eachi

staff member is a “journalis ” in charge of a specialty. He may cover a story dir- ectly or rewrite or edit the news agency reports on his. subject. Department chiefs check headlines and make space allotments but do not change copy.

As is the rule in European journalism, there is no clear line between reporting and opinion.

, “We are proud”, said an editor, “not of our objectivity but of our independence.” The assumption is that the reader knows the viewpoint of the reporter and expects it to be reflected in his copy. . .

Le Monde makes itself credible by re- jecting the myth of objectivity. It exposes

The myt

all its biases to the reader, who automa- tically learns the security of reading “news” that is placed in a readily identifiable con- text. Le Monde journalists —— the best in the world ——- have established their reputa- tions over time on a newspaper that has given them their heads. Readers take issue with Le Monde journalistsr not with Le Monde, and do not feel that they are being propagandized by an objective automation. The context of the news becomes as im- portant as the news itself —— indeed the one can never really be divorced from the other —— and journalist and reader engage in a relatonship similar to that of actor and audience.

I The refusal of American newspapers to

"consider Le Monde’s methods is a kind of "mistrust of the public that claims manage-

Ament knows best what readers need or want

- HollyWood and TV magnates hold similar

views. In the press, however, the fact is

"that many reporters try to make editorial ’ points between the lines of their objectivity,

ithus 'inserting surreptitiously what they should be writing candidly. Says one ex-

Newsweek man: “If you wanted to express

‘an- opinion, there was no problem. Insofar

v as I'recall the techniques, you invented a ‘ quote and ascribed it to somebody. . .made

up a person if necessary. It’s very devous, of‘ course, but it’s a substitute merely for doing-2 the sensible thing which would have been 'to write .a frst-person story in the first place.. .Newspaper men are always

_.finding ways to get around whatever in-

hibitions there are to personal journalism.”

,, Butthe trouble with using a subterfuge — I however much it may clarify the point of

astory -—- is that it still leaves the reader

_ wondering how objective the news story is,

how responsible the reporter is, what his

biases «may be.

I notion still prevails among reporters . that they should strive to be as objective

.as possible. It has a nice, clear-cut ring _ to it,’but nobody has been able to tell them

. how to approach that elusive goal, much

less what it really means. Most reporters and newspapers fall back on the idea that

the proper solution is a kind of “balance”, a presentation of pro and con that lends itself to mathematical analysis:’ that is, always try to get the other side of the story, even for just a couple of lines.

It is a puzzle why reporters continue to insist that objectivity, or balance, is the key to the good journalistic life, but one explanation may be that it permits a kind of psycholoogical anonymity. A reporter need not reveal what sort of person he is, uncover his biases. More important, by .clinging to the myth that he is indeed being as objective as humanly possible, he can evade personal responsibility for his work; he is only a technician of the news. Advoc- acy, on the other hand, openly admitted, requires an exposure of self, a willingness to undergo scrutiny, and a commitment to

, excellence that seems very demanding.

Some reporters are thus afraid of ad- vocacy. Those who don’t feel strongly about things see no reason to take sides. Others correctly perceive that they lack the com- petence to be advocacy reporters, that they do not really know their “heat.” A report- er cannot express his convictions about, say, education unless he has made himself an expert on the problems of schools and the theories of learning.

that journalism

It follows that the opportunity to be- come an advocate would cause responsive reporters to acquire the background neces- sary to acquit themselves creditably. The informed reporter would make himself known as competent to act in his new pro- fessional capacity, thus raising the general level .of the profession. Those who saw the advocacy role as an opportunity to dispense propaganda would be exposed as soon as the public judged their work against the progress of events.

is

Many newspapers would maintain that they already permit reporters to become advocates ~— usually on or opposite the edi- torial page, but occasionally in the news sections. However, managements inevitably insist that these contributions be identified as “columns” or “news analysis.” In the absence of a systematic attempt to orient either the public or reporters to the uses of advocacy journalism, these few columns have done nothing to increase the credibil- ity rating of the profession.

WHAT is to be done? One possible course for an adventurous management would be to experiment with a program that devotes a limited amount of space each day to the opinions of those reporters who have suf- ficient confidence in their ability. The space would be clearly identified as, containing advocacy accounts by the writers involved, and the content would be under the control of those producing it. It would be under- stood by all concerned that the judgments were those of the reporters, who had ac- quired the privilege of stating them by demonstrating good sense, knowledge and general competence. If the experiment suc- ceeded, it should cause a re-evaluation of space and assignment priorites.

A new city-room attitude should permit the most talented reporters to realize their capabilities for intellectual and investiga- tive work. The less enterprising would be confined to jobs for which opinion was irre- levant, and those inexperienced but eager

, to learn would be stimulated by the incen-

tive of new standards of excellence. The corruption, cynicism and apathy that have lost newspapers their standing in the com- munity probably cannot be eradicated until reporters are forced to take personal res- ponsibility for their actions. The advocacy experiment would force reporters to iden- tify themselves to the public, and to show in their jobs how they define themselves as political men.

It would also cause newspaper man- agements to re-evaluate themselves politi- cally, as they redefined the purpose and public need for the daily newspaper in the context of broadcasting competition. For example, regional newspapers are discover- ing that it makes less and less sense to compete with the New York Times on na- tional and international news coverage even when the wire services give adequate cov- erage. Instead they tend increasingly to run news roundup sections. The Wall Street Journal’s front page makes very effective use of the roundup technique, leaving per- sonnel available to report and write three original —— and frequently outstanding — stories each day. '

EXCELLENT newspaper men are forever complaining that they have no time to do the investigative or interpretive reporting

destroying

of which they are capable. It is odd that a newspaper will boast that its state-house reporter has been on the job for twenty years, but never given the readers the bene- fit of his opinion on state politics, or about how that construction firm got the big con- tract. A reporter who knows hs beat should be expected to tell readers what’s on his mind as a basic part of his job. Those who see themselves as recorders of facts should be confned to factual section of the news- paper—accidents, sports, births and deaths —and those who want to use facts to ex- pose larger issues should not be burdened with a technician’s job. Ideally, an idea man should be paired with a facts man, or two or more frankly biased reporters.

Press releases, if important, might be printed verbatim, just like the text of a speech. Rewriting them is worth no one’s time.

The market for objective “facts” has been saturated by TV,‘as newspaper man- agements well know. Newspapers must provide something more than a statistical expansion of the eleven o’clock news, but no amount of “reform” discussion will pro- duce a new product; the conditions must change. This requires structural innovation. a radical transformation of the American daily newspaper into a social participant, not a mere observer. Neutrality is conceiv- able only in a political vacuum and nothing is more political than a newspaper. The public knows this and withholds its belief from journals that venerate objectivity.

The key element in journalism, as in all writing and all art, is risk, sometimes per- sonal risk. Newspapers will never be “ready” for personal journalism, for major changes, for a role in the events around them, until reporters and editors are will- ing to stick their necks out.

Mr. Deitch writes on economic and fin- ancial affairs for the Boston Globe.

Reprinted from The Nation