Mar
30
2004
This week’s reading presents a thorough literature review and related empirical researches on the issue of ethics in journalism and public relations. This issue of ethical journalism has been examined and discussed in terms of issues and theories (p. 44, Ferre). One of the core aspects of the issue, as what was discussed in Ferre’s and Merrill’s articles, is whether objectivity is one of the categorical standards for the evaluation of journalism ethics. Put another way, is it objective to make judgments about journalist’s ethics in light of whether their professional practices violate the principle of objectivity.
Merrill’s approach criticizes the convention commonly held by journalists that objectivity in reporting is the sufficient condition to “fulfill the highest and most responsible expectation possible.”(p. 391). However, by indicating a journalist has to achieve objectivity by the “concentration on technique” of being objective, Merrill equates the concept of objectivity to certain methods taken to achieve this goal. This can be regarded as a strategy of reasoning, that is, an application of reduction to absurdity. Nevertheless, in the following part of his article, reporting objectively was described as “truthfully, accurately, fully”. The three aspects are no doubt the significant cores of the objectivity but the fulfillment of them will simply meet the requirement of objectivity? Definitely not. It is a pity to find no accurate or through explanation of objectivity in Merrill’s articles. His neglect to the core definition might partly due to the reason that objectivity is a complicated and situational concept.
From different perspectives, the definition of objectivity is changing. What standards employed to judge the objectivity per se is a cognitive process which relies heavily on the subjects who make the judgments. In the case of single person, his/her past experience, cultural background, ideation, socioeconomic status, cognitive ability, religion and other factors play important roles in shaping his evaluation toward objectivity. Let us push this to a broader sense. In a homogenized society or community, the common properties shared by a group of subjects guarantee their relatively similar and stable perspectives towards certain issues, objectivity included. However, this consistency can exist solely in a certain range of subjects. For example, sincere praises based on facts are usually regarded as frank and objective in western countries while in collective cultural backgrounds, say in East Asia, these might be misunderstood as a subjective flattery to achieve other goals. The general aspect of objectivity like “judgment based on observable phenomena”, “uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices”, “disclosing the truth” usually can be accepted by most occasions. However, the most specific or lower levels of objectivity depends on the situations where certain issues occurs, under what perspective they are perceived and what interest groups they have influences on. Thus, the objective reporting should be seen from a situational perfective, especially those reports on international affairs or different ideologies.
By conducting a survey, Merrill aims to examine the degree to which journalists and journalism educators accepted the objectivity-as-ethics concept. His study demonstrates the commonly understanding towards this issue among journalist professions but his questions were based on the personal understanding of those surveyed. In consideration of the insufficient conceptual definition, the result of the study should be scrutinized carefully as a reference for the future study.
