MSNBC.com recently published a list of journalists who donated money to political parties, candidates and political organizations. \nJournalists are people. People have political persuasions and opinions. But for some reason, we expect journalists to omit themselves from the realm other people normally inhabit for the sake of “objectivity.”\nWhen journalists – not just fashion and sports writers, but TV anchors and political analysts at big networks – give money to political causes, we suspect their writings of having subtly implanted agendas. Perhaps a news article about the subjective journalist’s preferred presidential hopeful will contain fewer facts and more analysis. Maybe they will give voice to fewer articulate criticisms and instead showcase the most brilliant arguments for their particular point of view. We the readers fear we will be influenced unwittingly through a subjective journalist’s presentation of politics.\nBut all kinds of choices go into writing about politics, many of them complex and at the discretion of the journalist alone. Facts, an alleged pillar of reassurance amongst the uncertain sea of subjectivity, rarely stand alone. Facts are subject to analysis and only relevant in as much as they relate to other facts. And facts are always presented through a critical or analytical outlet – whether it be a newspaper article, a textbook or a documentary. Can we really say that facts as they are presented are inherently unbiased? No, because behind every fact is the human element of analysis and criticism. And those two major functions of thought are not to be “objective.”\nObjectivity – the pinnacle of American journalism – is not as we think.\nIt may trouble the media’s audience that some of the journalists who gave donations have direct policy concerning such activity. But stringent policy about what journalists can and can’t do infringes upon First Amendment rights. Journalists should use discretion when making political gestures, but these gestures should not be banned. Our journalists should not be subjected to “thought policing.”\nIn light of objectivity’s tenuous qualities, as readers we must read critically, just as journalists write critically.
\nDissent
That journalists are making campaign and political contributions should be a major concern for those media establishments wanting to maintain an objective perspective. As human beings, journalists naturally have opinions. However, their job requires that they not show them in order to maintain the level of objectivity that many Americans perceive to be declining. Journalists, from writers to page designers, have a responsibility to present unbiased news to the public so that they have the objective information to make their own assessments.\nJust as doctors are responsible for their patients and lawyers are responsible for their clients, journalists have a primary responsibility to do their job effectively for their readers. Political contributions of this manner sacrifice their objectivity and betray their primary focus, along with the reputation of their employers. Therefore, the likes of the Chicago Tribune and CBS are justified in banning political activity by their employees. \n–Jacob Stewart
