We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
How Editors View Objectivity.
- Authors
Boyer, John H.
- Abstract
Editors in the Type I grouping appear to value an element they would call ‘balance’ in their defining of objectivity. This indicates a feeling that there are two sides to every question and both should be reported accurately with an absence of opinion; the idea that objectivity is some- thing that is unattainable or that the flow of events could favor one side over another in the act of reporting is rejected. These editors reject the idea that objectivity is an unattainable goal, and they deny that the simple reporting of an event might favor one side over another without interpretation. Editors of the Type I category saw no need to attempt to give a total picture as a condition of objectivity, believing that the act of reporting things as they happen is sufficient to the purposes of objectivity. Type II editors perceived objectivity as an ‘unattainable goal.’ They see it as a way of minimizing reporter opinions, while optimizing reporter experience as ‘balance,’ while recognizing ‘opinion.’ These editors were very negative on the idea that ‘objectivity requires to be interested but not a participant in every event,’ but found the ‘obsession with objectivity is itself a distortion of reality’ as not acceptable. They agree that it should involve ‘facts without coloring,’ and vigorously rejected the idea that it is a ‘cop-out used by editors to avoid making decisions.’ Type II editors tended to be clustered closer to Type I-than to Type II. Type III editors define objectivity in terms of lack of bias, allowing ‘both’ sides to be heard, ‘balance,’ but tending more toward the relativistic or situational view than Type I. In comparing demographics, the most salient appears to be the number of years in the current job. More Type I editors, eight, were in their current jobs more than 10 years than the combined total in that category for Types II and III. Type I editors tend to be the most traditional in their view of objectivity. Another salient demographic mark for Type I editors is size of newspaper. Six of the 18 editors in that group were from newspapers of more than 100,000 circulation, while editors in Types II and III tended to come from newspapers of less than 50,000 circulation. It appears that most editors who responded were self-trained or trained by their predecessors in the job. Considering the differences, especially between Types I and III, and Type II, it is remarkable that editors tend to express themselves much the same, i.e., in terms of balance, fairness and service to readers.
- Subjects
OBJECTIVITY in journalism; PERIODICAL editors; JOURNALISTIC ethics; JOURNALISM; MASS media
- Publication
Journalism Quarterly, 1981, Vol 58, Issue 1, p24
- ISSN
0196-3031
- Publication type
Article
- DOI
10.1177/107769908105800104