EARLIER this month, the Ombudsman's column addressed the issue of balanced coverage as part of examining the most common reader complaint - that an article in the paper wasn't "fair." The other aspect, which was set aside for a later time, was subjectivity in reporting. This column seeks to complete the discussion which began in the first column this month by addressing the subjective/objective distinction in reporting.
Concerns about objectivity are a significant part of The Cavalier Daily's Code of Ethics, and of most newspapers' ethical codes. Most journalists recognize that total objectivity is an aspirational ideal - an ethical precept that is set out as a lodestar to guide journalists in their duties, but which is not attainable in its most absolute sense. Journalists typically work hard to be vigilant about their biases, but a reporter is not an absolutely neutral recording mechanism, and subtle biases and beliefs likely color how the reporters perceive the events they report. In addition, there are other factors likely to influence perception of an event, including the pressures of deadlines, career ambitions and prior knowledge or experience with the subject.
Simply because an ideal is not absolutely attainable does not mean that it is without value, nor that reporters should not strive to be as objective as possible. News reportage seeks to communicate facts about notable events, in a context which helps readers understand the full significance of the event. It is important that such reportage be as free of bias and opinion as possible, so that people can make their own judgments and draw their own conclusions as to the meaning of important events. This is an incredibly difficult task. Reporters gathering information find every aspect of their job entails a risk for bias to creep in - from the questions they ask, how those questions are phrased, and the order in which they are asked, to the language they ultimately choose to use in reporting the news.
The issue of objectivity is particularly timely in this, an election year. Some topics, no matter how careful and balanced a reporter tries to be, will inevitably bring forth from readers cries of bias and partisanship. Such topics include election-year politics, abortion, school prayer, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and capital punishment. These are topics fraught with tension, charged with emotion, and loaded with difficult ethical, moral and social ramifications. Some readers will see any coverage which opposes or challenges their view on these topics as being biased or unfair. Some readers have agendas which they try to promote through letters-to-the-editor, by complaining of bias where none exists, and by seeking to "spin" the available information. Of course, there is also occasional bias in the reporting on these "loaded" topics, as the same qualities which produce such a strong emotional valence for readers do so for reporters as well. It is on such "hot" topics that reporters and editors alike should be most alert for subtle expressions of bias, like in the choice of descriptive words.
An example in which language could imply bias comes from recent coverage of the Richard Smith case against the University and the University Judiciary Committee. This is a case in which emotion and opinion ran high for members of the University community, increasing the possibility of bias, as well as likely increased scrutiny by the readership. In Thursday's paper, the article "University wins Smith suit" says "[a]t Friday's trial, Smith said a not-guilty verdict 'would be giving [the jury's] stamp of approval on what happened.'" The language referring to a "not-guilty verdict," as written, is the reporter's, not Smith's. Guilt, in a legal framework, is relevant only in relation to those charged with a crime. Vice President for Student Affairs William W. Harmon and the members of the UJC were found to be not liable, but guilt or innocence was not within the purview of the jury, as no crime had been charged. Was the reporter trying to imply, ever so subtly, that Mr. Harmon and the members of the UJC are criminals? Of course not. I chose this example in part because it was harmless, but also because it showed how inadvertent meaning can be triggered by a reporter's choice of words.
In closing, let me note that some parts of the paper are supposed to be partisan. Subjective opinion is their purpose, including editorials, viewpoint pieces, reviews, editorial cartoons, the ombudsman column and, potentially, the comics. Though these elements of the paper advocate for a position, they still have some ethical restraints: to not knowingly present falsehoods, to not propagate unsubstantiated rumor, nor to present quotes out of context, for the purposes of strengthening their argument, or for any other purpose. Within these guidelines, opinion pieces do just what they say: express a writer's opinion, in a subjective manner. If it is one of those parts of the paper which leads a reader to cry bias, that reader might be better served to submit a piece in response, to provide a balancing perspective. It is my impression that the editorial board of The Cavalier Daily welcomes such contributions.
(Brent Garland can be reached at ombudsman@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
PARTING SHOT: No man is an island
By Ava MacBlane | May 16, 2024Retirement, as you can tell, has been treating me well. When people ask me now if I miss it, I laugh and tell them some things I definitely don't miss. But I don't always get to tell them about the things I really do miss.
PARTING SHOT: You never know unless you try
By Lexi Baker | May 16, 2024My time at the University was shaped by the people who showed me grace and kindness and by those who had confidence in me, even when I struggled to have it in myself.
PARTING SHOT: A love letter to Cav Daily and Connection
By Ava Proehl | May 15, 2024My time here taught me to look for the genuine, human connection in every moment.
