Objectivity in Journalism: The Dangers of False Equivalences and a Prescription for Television News

Introduction:

A false equivalence can be defined as presenting two or more arguments about a point as if they are all of equal merit or validity. Real world examples range from Christians arguing that both Christianity and evolutionism teach about the origins of humankind so it is only rational to teach both in the classroom to equating Neo-Nazis with ordinary protesters. This fallacy can be seen every day on cable news because in a strive to achieve balance and avoid the appearance of bias to viewers and advertisers, cable news outlets have created a breeding ground for false equivalences. There are many topics in which viewers are presented with false equivalences on seemingly equal side on topics varying from vaccinating children to how many people attended an inauguration. This paper will explore how the pursuit of objectivity in journalism has been misunderstood by modern journalists through exploring climate change reporting by cable news outlets, the history of objectivity in journalism, the dangers of current objectivity before finally offering a solution for the industry to rid itself of a crisis of false equivalence.

The Science on Climate Change:

This paper’s stance is that climate change is a concern for the planet and that it is mostly caused by humans. This perspective has been adopted in accordance to the United Nation’s climate change report from October 2018. The report was produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), it is the United Nations’ division for analyzing the science and all things related to climate change. IPCC is a nonpartisan institute and their report is thoroughly reviewed in order to make sure it reflects the most timely and accurate numbers. According to the latest IPCC (2018) report, humans are the cause for a majority of rising temperatures; that means we are responsible for roughly 1.0°C of the 1.5°C temperature increase that is anticipated on Earth between 2030 and 2052 (p. 6). This is important to establish now because the rest of the essay will advocate discussing climate change from one perspective, that of the IPCC and other institutions that acknowledge the climate is shifting at a rapid rate caused by mankind.

A Brief History on Objectivity:

First, let’s explore the history of objectivity, to understand where the ideal originates because it is complicated story. In the early 20th century, journalism scholars and practitioners known as Pragmatists proposed the idea that truth wasn’t necessarily universal and that ultimately it was relative. This idea directly contradicted the preceding belief in the 19th century that advocated for a marketplace of ideas model in terms of reporting. In theory, outlets gathered as much information as possible from all sides, presented that information to viewers and expected them to make the right decision with all the facts at hand (Dean & Rosenstiel n.d.). In practice, the news media of the 19th century was extremely partisan, their goal was to keep voters in line with their party and try to convert the non-supporters (Bauhman, 2011). Therefore, the American public was never given an opportunity to see all ideas presented in a fair or balanced manner. Prior to the 19th century was the Enlightenment Era of the 18th century and it borne the concept of objectivity. However, the epoch’s idea of objectivity was definitively different from how it was understood in the 20th century by Pragmatists. In the 1700s, academics thought absolute truth was attainable in journalism, whereas, Pragmatists saw truth as being context based. This idea would be further solidified by Postmodernist who stated truth was socially constructed and therefore, subjective. All this is to say the term objectivity has a been defined by many people in journalism in a multitude of ways over a long period of time.

How Should Objectivity Be Understood?

The term objectivity, as this paper wants it to be understood, is closer to the model of the Pragmatists and Postmodernists of the early to mid 20th century. The concept was initially developed because there was an understanding that journalists, like all people, are biased and cannot be asked to remove themselves from lived experiences (Dean & Rosenstiel, n.d.). The theory took into consideration the aforementioned partisan press of the 19th century and attempted to invalidate and abandon that model. The term, as they used it, aimed to turn journalists toward a scientific method or standard, a proper means for testing the validity of information, so that biases would have minimal to no impact on reporting (Dean & Rosenstiel, n.d.). The idea of adopting “the scientific spirit” was proposed by many including Walter Lippmann, a renowned reporter and writer (Dean & Rosenstiel, n.d.). Lippmann wanted to fundamentally reform journalism education and make it almost entirely rooted in evidence gathering and verification (Dean & Rosenstiel n.d.). Lippmann and his contemporaries wanted the practice of objectivity to mean collecting and disseminating information in an objective or standardized manner not for the journalist to fight human nature and somehow be unbiased (Dean & Rosenstiel n.d.). The goal was to make journalists’ methods repeatable and testable (Kumar, 2016, p.95). Objectivity, as we know and practice it in the 21st century, is an attempt by news outlets to demonstrate to viewers that they are impartial and to prove that their organization is constantly undergoing a process to create a balanced product (Dean & Rosenstiel, n.d.). There is an element of dishonesty often involved because journalist will often bring one person that espouses their opinion, regardless of validity, and another that has opposing views and call it balanced even though they are hiding their bias and failing to highlight the truth or validity of one side. According to Dean & Rosenstiel (n.d.), journalism has developed many new techniques and adapted somewhat well with advancing technologies but it has fundamentally failed to find a way of analyzing and developing the news they gather and being proper gatekeepers that present viewers with the best information.

Returning to Climate Change:

Climate change reporting exemplifies one of the many ways modern journalism has failed to properly frame a topic of great significance. When it comes to science, journalists, more often than not, interpret objectivity as showing opposing sides of an argument and giving them equal time as if they were of equal value (Kumar, 2016, p. 94). This often means amplifying fringe voices on the issue that do not ordinarily have an opportunity to access mass audiences. There is however an ethical dilemma for many journalist because it is ostensibly a catch 22; many believe they have to show all sides because that is what the public expects. Consequently, journalists are merely serving as facilitators or funnels for information and not necessarily gatekeepers. Below are examples of how a false equivalence on the topic of climate change has been created over the years by cable news outlets.

Examples in the Media:

Much of the 21st century has been an on-going debate over climate change and what causes it; this is proven on most news outlets that cover the topic. Take for example this clip from 2012, uploaded by CNN that features Bill Nye arguing that climate change is mostly manmade and a serious problem. One could argue that Nye is not the foremost expert on climate change, but he is however, a scientists, well versed in climate research and arguing with the support of a great majority of the scientific community. Nye’s credibility is weighed against Marc Morano’s, a man who according to Nuccitelli (2018), is a former Republican aide that also used to work for Rush Limbaugh, a conservative radio host, and has no scientific background whatsoever that would qualify him to speak on climate change. Nonetheless, Morano and Nye are invited to debate each other as if they both have equally valid points or the same backgrounds in science and research. By allowing Morano to espouse his unfounded beliefs that climate change is not caused by humans and not as serious as some researchers state, CNN is allowing falsehoods to be spewed on their network, all for the sake of appearing balanced. It could be reasoned that CNN is merely trying to present all the sides of the debate in order to help their viewers realize that there are many schools of thought and furthermore, that the network aims to let the public independently decide the right thing to believe. But this paper disagrees with that rationale because CNN’s actions are dangerous. The two men are presented side by side, on split screen, establishing a literal and visual dichotomy, essentially telling viewers that it is valid to think either way because there are many supporting arguments for each side. This manner of portraying an argument ignores the research by independent and qualified bodies like the IPCC. This demonstrates how one news outlet helps perpetuate a false equivalence over the debate of climate change in a strive to remain “objective”. According to Kennedy (2018), of the Pew Research Center, 59% of Americans believe climate change impacts their “community” to some extent. How could one argue that CNN’s hand is being forced when most of the America is seeing the climate change right around them because of their activities? CNN has adopted an extremely naïve perspective in terms of objectivity by adopting the marketplace of ideas belief and leaving the analysis and interpretation of news information to their audience.

Examples of journalists creating a false equivalence in terms of climate change reporting, on cable television, is not limited to the US. The ethical dilemma over finding balance has seen many European news outlets commit the same mistakes as their American colleagues (Kumar, 2016, p. 92). Take for example this video from the BBC in 2010, there are many ways to describe the contents of the video, but none better than the individual(s) who reposted it to YouTube: “she thinks it's a problem, he thinks it's rubbish. Let battle commence”. In this case, the BBC, much like CNN, is allowing two arguments on climate change to be presented as if they were of equal worth. At one point, roughly 4:20 in the video, the host says: “I think our viewers can probably read these stories for themselves and make up their own minds and obviously I don’t think the two of you are going to agree on this anytime soon.” By allowing the two reporters to battle each other at length, speaking or sometimes even yelling over each other, the BBC is telling its audience that climate change is a nuanced and unsettled issue. In actuality it is not, most Europeans, like Americans, believe in climate change (Wike, 2016). In fact according to Pew, Europeans on average consider climate change to be harming people now compared to Americans who on average do not believe it is immediately affecting humans (Wike, 2016). The idea that viewers can decide for themselves, returns to the marketplace of ideas model previously described, where viewers are presented with all arguments and points and then left to decide because in theory, the best and most valid idea always wins. However, that is faulty reasoning and the journalist here is relinquishing her responsibility to her audience to be a gatekeeper who informs them of what is valid, based on her own reporting and analysis. Instead, she allows them to argue, while having little to no control over the situation, while falsely assuming that an audience member, without any prior knowledge or expertise on the issue, would be able to distinguish between arguments that are presented as equal. Interestingly enough, according to Kumar (2016), the British press has typical done a much better at being watchdogs instead of facilitators, as compared to their American peers (p. 92). Typically, American journalists report all the information without a critical analysis of what it all means, whereas, European journalists are expected to breakdown the information, analyze and then synthesize it for the viewers (Kumar, 2016, p. 92). Recently however, European journalists have increasingly started adopting the American style of “objectivity”, proving no side is truly better than the other (Kumar, 2016, p. 92). This video from the BBC, demonstrating two people vehemently arguing about climate change, from opposing viewpoints, serves as an attempt for the BBC to appear balanced and unbiased to its audience. However, they are doing their viewers a disservice by not including a critical analysis of the dangers of climate change. This illustrates one way the BBC helps perpetuate a false equivalence over the debate.

When it comes to creating a false equivalence, right leaning outlets are just as guilty at improperly presenting the “climate debate” as left leaning media outlets like CNN. Fox News is much worse relative to CNN and MSNBC when presenting the subject as if it is still very much open to debate (Huertas & Kriegsman, 2014, p. 1). A study found less than 30 percent of Fox News’ segments on the impacts and cause of the shifting climate were accurate compared to 70 percent accuracy on CNN (Huertas & Kriegsman, 2014, p. 1). In 2017, Tucker Carlson, a Fox News host, invited Bill Nye on his show to talk about the extent to which climate change was primarily caused by humans. As discussed earlier, Bill Nye is a scientists, who bases his arguments on the climate on research largely supported by the scientific community. Tucker Carlson, on the other hand, has no scientific background, his arguments do not come from a place of fact and years of scientific data that is supported by the UN and many others, but still viewers are presented with yet another split screen. They are left to their own devices to decide who is accurate. Carlson argues about climate change as if they were debating the existence of extraterrestrial life. Strangely enough, despite the ideological divide between Fox and CNN, they both present climate change in this manner in an attempt to appear unbiased. Fox is extremely, conservative and pro-business, which are all codes for being against the notion of human caused climate change, but even they have to fear appearing prejudiced. Fox is doing an injustice to their viewers and proving that false equivalences, in terms of climate change, can be found on cable networks on both sides of the political spectrum.

Why Is Journalism Like This?

For one, it’s easy to present news like this. Reporters are tempted to use readily available information even if they originate from unqualified sources because they are often under deadline and cannot present their audience with nothing (Cunningham, 2003). Reporters are known to cut corners under deadline and objectivity, as it is currently understood, tolerates that type of behavior. Bob Woodward, retired Washington Post reporter, says modern journalism often fails to reach the essence or meaning of a story because outlets never make it beyond the “latest” (Cunningham, 2003). Lethargy is of course not the only factor because as previously discussed, there is an ethical dilemma for journalists. According to Cunningham (2003), one reason for the dilemma is that the news media has essentially been guilt tripped into allowing extreme views to reach the mainstream, with individuals like Anne Coulter, a conservative political commentator, leading the charge. Once again, it’s a catch 22 because if reporters do not show “balance”, by allowing fringe voices, like Coulter’s, they risk being perceived as biased. In terms of climate change, it means the subject is presented as a debate in order to increase viewership (Kumar, 2016, p. 96). News outlets want to appear as unbiased as possible in order to attract the most amount of viewers or clicks. In the words of Washington Post economic reporter Jonathan Weisman, “if you are perceived as having a political bias, or a slant, you’re screwed” (Cunnigham, 2003). He means advertisers and the viewers want the news to appear unbiased even though that is an impossible ideal. This applies to advertisers especially because according to Kumar (2016), there is a constant concern of profitability, which is attainable by having the most amount of viewers possible (p. 96). Kumar (2016) argues that because arguments create tension and tension subsequently draws in viewers executives feel content about the bottom-line, while journalists also feel a sense of duty accomplished and maintain a false sense of objectivity (p. 96).

What Is The Solution?

First things first, journalist need to remember that they are not robots and were not born without bias. Journalists need to make value judgments on sources and information, therefore, it is impossible to highlight certain faults, or say which sources are more credible than others while remaining “objective” (Kumar, 2016, p. 95). This is to say cable news outs need to understand that they are not doing anyone a service by presenting two arguments as if they are of equal value. Journalists, as gatekeepers, need to be watchdogs for the public, not a funnel for any and every piece of information to be dispensed to the public. In recognition of this fact, in 1996, the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) removed the term “objectivity” from its code of ethics; in awareness of the fact that the concept was extremely difficult to define and aspire to (Cunnigham, 2003). Broadcast news outlets need to follow the SPJ’s steps and rid themselves of the notion of “objectivity” or at least need to redefine and solidify the term because it is simply too subjective. By redefining objectivity modern journalism can hope to remove the false sense of balance that plagues the industry (Kumar, 2016, p. 96). News outlets absolutely need to analyze and synthesize the information sources present, whether that’s on climate change or vaccines, for examples. Journalists cannot leave interpretation of data to the audience, it defies the recommendations of the SPJ and frankly, is lazy. According to the SPJ’s Code of Ethics, it is a journalist’s responsibility to “interpret” the information that they gather, not merely to dump that information on viewers.

Journalists ought to keep in mind Lippmann’s theories on standardizing journalism and mirroring it after science. The goal was not to abandon the idea or pursuit of objectivity, but to instead redefine what we call objectivity. The standard ought to be interviewing sources, analyzing that information and then synthesizing what the sources said before presenting the information to the audience. This is a methodology that can be repeated, tested and has room for a hypothesis, much like the scientific method. Journalists need to do some agenda setting and filter what sifts onto viewers’ screens. Journalists ought to have the liberty to, call it as they see it, “but not be committed to one side or the other” as Daniel Bice, a self-described political watchdog columnist, puts it (Cunnigham, 2003). This recommendation is in accordance with the SPJ’s recommendation, which states ethical journalists “provide context” and make sure to not oversimplify or misrepresent an argument.

Finally, journalist’s need to adopt W.D. Ross’s idea of competing ethical duties, which states there are competing roles humans must keep in mind. There are seven competing duties according to Ross: fidelity, reparation, gratitude, justice, beneficence and self-improvement and we use them to determine what we must to do in every situation (Garrett, 2014). These duties are thought of as competing with each other because Ross states that they can outweigh each other depending on the context. In the case of climate change or any type of reporting, this means journalists should remember that their sole responsibility is not to gather and present information. Even though news gathering fulfills the “fidelity” or promise aspect of their work, it is not enough. Fidelity goes in hand with the journalist’s goal to do no harm but Ross would argue that it is not the prima face duty because there is the duty of beneficence. Beneficence, according to Garrett (2014), is one’s responsibility to do good for others, which means meaning well for others in terms of their knowledge and well-being, among many other things. Journalists are ignoring their overriding ethical responsibility to add to the wisdom of their audiences because false equivalences do no contribute to the advancement of the audiences’ knowledge or intelligence, as this essay has continually argued. By keeping in mind the idea of competing ethical duties journalists can act out of a place of morality when they choose to stop being facilitators and instead prioritized the public’s well-being.

Conclusion:

Objectivity as it is currently understood and practiced by modern journalists is based on a fallacious understanding of what the role of a journalist is. Journalists are not entirely to blame because by examining the history of journalism, through the 18th century, or Enlightenment Era, we can see that the term is very difficult to define. This paper argues the journalist’s role should be as the SPJ advocates, that of a watchdog that gathers news and analyzes the data before presenting it to their audience. The three examples prove the dangers of “objective” reporting that allows fringe and unsubstantiated arguments to receive as much airtime as credible and well researched works. Granted some outlets, like Fox News are much worse than others like CNN at this, but this practice of creating false equivalences by any outlet is inexcusable. Journalists can claim that there is an ethical dilemma but as this essay has proven there is not, at least not in terms of climate change reporting. There is a fundamental difference between data supported by most Americans and scientists and extreme perspectives with no scientific or logical backing, so why would we present them as if they are equal?. There are of course other factors, like advertising revenue and laziness that contribute to the false equivalence that is constantly created on cable news outlets, but this practice can be avoided by redefining what it means to be objective. The definition of objectivity should be as Lippmann described, a scientific or standardized process for newsgathering that can be replicated and tested. In addition, journalists ought to adopt Ross’s theory on competing ethical duties because it goes hand in hand with the SPJ’s recommendation. A journalists’ duty to analyze and interpret information from sources before presenting it to the public outweighs their duty to demonstrate the many sides to an argument.

References-

Baughman, J. L. (2011, April 20). THE FALL AND RISE OF PARTISAN JOURNALISM. Retrieved November 25, 2018.

CNN. (2012, December 04). Bill Nye, Marc Morano on Global Warming [On opposite ends of the issue, Bill Nye and Marc Morano debate Global Warming, and CO2]. Retrieved November 23, 2018.

Cunnigham, B. (2003, July & August). Re-thinking Objectivity. Columbia Journalism Review,N.p. Retrieved November 20, 2018.

Fox News. (2017, February 27). Tucker vs. Bill Nye the Science Guy [Bill Nye has argued that climate change deniers suffer psychological delusions. Tucker takes him on in an unforgettable debate]. Retrieved November 22, 2018.

Garrett, J. (2004). A Simple and Usable (Although Incomplete) Ethical Theory Based on the Ethics of W. D. Ross (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Western Kentucky University. Retrieved November 25, 2018.

Huertas, A., & Kriegsman, R. (2014, April). Science or Spin? Retrieved November 21, 2018.

Kennedy, B. (2018, May 16). Most Americans say climate change affects their community. Retrieved November 20, 2018.

Nuccitelli, D. (2018, July 25). Facebook video spreads climate denial misinformation to 5 million users. The Guardian. Retrieved November 25, 2018.

Praveen Kumar, N. (2016). Journalistic objectivity in Media risk debates: challenges & opportunities. Clarion: International Multidisciplinary Journal, 5(1), 91–97. https://doi-org.proxyiub.uits.iu.edu/10.5958/2277-937X.2016.00013.7

SPECIAL REPORT: GLOBAL WARMING OF 1.5 ºC (pp. 6-26, Rep.). (2018). IPCC.

TopTellyFan. (2010, February 6). Yasmin Alibhai Brown & John Torode argue about Climate Change (BBC News, 06.02.10) - TopTellyFan [She thinks it's a problem, he thinks it's rubbish. Let battle commence!]. Retrieved November 22, 2018.

Wike, R. (2016, April 18). What the world thinks about climate change in 7 charts. Retrieved November 22, 2018.