Opinion: Objectivity is unachievable in journalism. So why is the Western world obsessed with it?

In a constantly changing world, how can journalists evenly and equitably navigate the concepts of objectivity, accuracy and fairness in reporting? The truth is: They can’t.

Objectivity, impartiality and fairness are discussed regularly in the journalism world and labelled as concepts all journalists should strive towards, albeit acknowledging that complete objectivity does not exist in the field.

In combating the discourse on objectivity, Western journalism has stressed the need to collectively work towards transparency and representing the truth as accurately as possible rather than strive for impartiality, with the Canadian Association of Journalists emphasizing that accuracy is the imperative of journalists and news organizations.

But the concepts of objectivity and fairness in journalism are theoretical frameworks that are largely based in Western foundational thinking. Early 20th century journalists like Walter Lippmann popularized objectivity in journalism by prompting reporters to drop their biases and focus on objective truth to effectively inform the public. The framework of objectivity remains deeply ingrained in Western journalism — but it primarily benefits white journalists.  

The level of truth in a journalism piece being determined from a Western ideology makes it increasingly difficult for marginalized and racialized people to conform to the journalistic standard of fairness in storytelling, as they themselves are not held to the same standard as white reporters, editors and media representatives in newsroom environments.

As a result, the current state of Western media practices and accuracy isn’t taken as seriously as it used to be and there is an increasing wave of doubt when it comes to the news cycle, which Pacinthe Mattar refers to as a “deep crisis of credibility.” Mattar ties this crisis to the mistrust and subjugation of racialized reporters who attempt to cover a diverse array of stories that continuously get shut down for being too subjective or controversial, like Mattar’s story on the 2017 al-Aqsa mosque protests in occupied Palestine, where her senior producer pulled the story without explaining why.

According to Wesley Lowery’s New York Times op-ed, the views and inclinations of whiteness are accepted as the objective neutral. Objectivity as a concept is weaponized against racialized journalists and any journalism that takes place outside the construct of the Western world.

People of colour’s perspectives of what may constitute the representation of truth in journalistic storytelling are often viewed as entirely biased and subjective through the West’s system. Subjectivity is virtually unavoidable in journalism, both for reporters and for the public, as no two people will have the same exact views and lived experiences. It’s just that this understanding and grace is almost exclusively applied to white journalists in the West.

Where white journalists are dignified in the field, racialized journalists are often perceived as untrustworthy storytellers solely because of their race and background, undermining or second-guessing them whenever they feel strongly about writing a story on communities of colour.  

In other words, subjectivity is almost exclusively viewed as a hindrance to journalism when it entails racialized journalists and stories surrounding people of colour, not an opportunity for further research and understanding on a particular issue or angle. A marginalized reporter’s opinion, biases and experiences in their communities can add to an investigative piece and make it more in-depth, but their voices are not prioritized.

Callison, Candis and Mary Lynn’s “Opening up Journalism’s Crisis,” discusses objectivity serving as a performative role and the recognition of biases as representative of situated knowledge and experiences as opposed to the general view of bias solely representing difference.

The reality is that it is impossible for every reporter to have the same unbiased viewpoint when there are endless perspectives, ways of life, cultures and lived experiences.

Regardless, the Western world acts as if their system and structure of journalism practices is inherently superior to the rest of the world’s practices. As if everyone in the world needs to adhere to the Western standard of reporting to be seen as credible.

Media studies have found that across regions across Europe, the Middle East, South Africa and South Asia, objectivity is not a major characteristic of media institutions, unlike the North American landscape. Brian and Matthew Winston’s The Roots of Fake News: Objecting to Objective Journalism highlights how journalism and its ideologies vary between cultures and the rules on fairness and accuracy surrounding journalistic practices do not apply to every region.

Although it may seem like the notion of objectivity and fairness in journalism is a universal outlook, media organizations outside of the West utilize the practice of journalism in many differing ways, prioritizing balance and context over striving for an objective viewpoint that does not exist.

Instead of focusing on how to frame objectivity in journalism spaces and almost telling readers what to think and do instead of informing them, Western journalism needs to focus on accuracy through nuance, inclusion and providing the right context for readers to make their own conclusions.

This is a systemic issue that cannot be solved overnight. But it is a conversation that needs to be in the forefront of journalism debates.