file photo

Believe it or not, we in the newsroom spend a lot of time thinking about this thing called objectivity. At The Spectator and in the larger field of journalism, the basic rule is this: You don’t report on things you’re involved with. Conversely, if you want to report on something, don’t get involved.

The problem of objectivity has become especially prominent in this politically saturated semester. We student journalists have been advised to keep our politics on the down-low – no stickers, no campaigning, no publicly supporting candidates or issues.

Journalists in the real world are bound to follow the same rules. Being publicly political is an unquestioned taboo. Some prominent editors, in order to distance themselves from politics, do not even vote.

Reporters and editors have been reprimanded for marching in a pro-choice rally, demoted for organizing a citywide referendum to ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and fired for founding an anti-abortion organization. They often are explicitly forbidden to participate in demonstrations or activism.

It’s a noble idea, objectivity. When I read a news report, I want to find out what happened in the world, not get persuaded by the reporter’s agenda.

The ideal reporter, under this notion of objectivity, would have no agenda. This reporter would be free of all bias, preference or feeling regarding the issues she or he writes about. The ideal reporter, by virtue of being detached from the world, therefore would be in the perfect position to write a balanced, neutral report of just the facts.

It all sounds so simple. Not easy, at least not for those of us who are human and do have leanings, but simple.

Except it’s not. These qualities we glorify as core values of journalism – fairness, balance, neutrality – sound nice, but they do not take into account the inevitable diversity of human experience.

Take religion as an example. Say there’s some controversy brewing at the evangelical Christian church down the street. Who should write the story? Is the ideal reporter for a story on religion Protestant? Catholic? Jewish? Buddhist? All obviously have taken a stance on the issue of religion.

Even an atheist or an agnostic has an opinion on the matter. There is no position entirely outside the field of religion. No one is separate from it.

Some say good reporters just put their own preferences out of their minds. All they have to do, after all, is report the facts. But which facts? Which stories get covered and which get forgotten? A writer’s or editor’s personal ideas and experience will shape every decision of this kind.

Different people will make decisions differently. They will produce different stories. That single, superhuman voice of “neutrality” becomes an impossibility.

Another example: those gay issues we’ve been hearing about lately. Can you really trust a gay reporter to “objectively” report on the legal debate over same-sex marriage? Would a straight person be any better for the job?

We might be straight, lesbian, gay, bi, trans, whatever – but we’re all something. Just as there is no position outside of religion, there is no position outside of sexuality.

And in the name of fairness, one can’t rightly say that a certain group of people can be trusted to be unbiased while another cannot.

There is no such thing as an unbiased human being. And without a viable opposite, the idea itself becomes meaningless.

If that goal is dead, then, what can we strive for?

Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel in “The Elements of Journalism” suggest something called “independence from faction.” In short, journalists should make sure they’re working only on behalf of the public, not promoting a certain person or group.

This philosophy echoes the mainstream notion of objectivity, but there’s a difference. A reporter can be truly independent and still hold ideals.

“I think it’s possible to be an honest journalist and be loyal to a cause,” Kovach and Rosenstiel quote Maggie Gallhager, co-founder of the conservative Yale Free Press.

“But to be loyal to a political party, a person or faction means that you do not see your primary goal as commitment to speaking the truth to people who are your audience. There’s a fundamental conflict of loyalty there.”

For myself, independence from faction means I don’t consider myself a member of any political party. I do have ideals, and candidates may live up to them to a greater or lesser degree. I will vote, but I don’t believe any candidate is perfect.

As a journalist, I don’t wear campaign buttons or stickers, and if I had a yard I wouldn’t put a sign in it. I don’t write on behalf of the flag of any nation or its government. I swear allegiance to no person, party or organization.

Campaign paraphernalia still gives me a twinge of jealousy. I’ll admit it. I fear my silence amounts to complacency. I know full well how exciting worthwhile activism would be.

But a worthy cause is not an end in itself, it is a means of making the world a better place. If I can make the world a better place through reporting and writing well, that will be my contribution and my success.

I’m a reporter, and I have an agenda – one of responsibility and true democracy.