We've entered section II of "Key Readings in Journalism," which is all about "doing journalism." And we are starting with two very different readings: Gans' "Deciding What's News" a very famous research piece about the decision-making process of journalism and Martha Gellhorn's "The Face of War," which is a very different approach to doing journalism—more of a narrative, literary style.
Discuss what you think it means to be objective, whether you think objectivity is appropriate in news and what style you prefer in journalism.
Chapters 7 and 8 presented two very different approaches to journalism. Gans’ approach is representative of the type of journalism that is predominantly utilized within the United States. Gans states that in selecting what is news, “journalists strive to be objective, both in intent, by applying personal detachment; and in effect, by disregarding the implications of the news” (King & Chapman, 2012, p. 96). Therefore, in selecting what is news, journalists employ the central value of objectivity. In chapter 7, the style of journalism was much different. Instead of focusing on objectivity, Martha Gellhorn employed, “journalism of attachment” (King & Chapman, 2012, p. 106). This style of journalism puts the writer in the story rather than being a detached and objective observer. It written much more like a novel than the type of news story we are used to seeing in the United States.
ReplyDeleteThe differences in these two styles introduce the questions of what it means to be objective in journalism and whether objectivity is actually appropriate in journalism. I think that in a broad sense, similar to Gans’ conceptualization, being objective in journalism means keeping yourself out of the story. By this I mean that journalists should not only avoid including themselves in the narrative of their reporting, but also avoid allowing their personal values to impact their reporting as well. I think that an objective journalist should attempt to be completely detached from their work. In this sense, objectivity is an attempt to capture an event in the most accurate way without adding subjectivities.
As a psychology major, I know that objectivity is difficult because every person makes sense of an external reality based on individual organizations or frameworks of thought called schemas. Gans brings up a similar topic in his discussion of reality judgments (King & Chapman, 2012, p. 102). These representations are based on experience, and therefore can be subjective. For this reason, objectivity is difficult because journalists have to avoid allowing schemas to effect their work, which is near impossible because they are so engrained in our thought processes. Although I think that it is almost impossible to be completely, one hundred percent objective, I still think some American journalists are able to obtain a relatively high level of objectivity, while others are not. Furthermore, I think that objectivity is appropriate in news because it pushes journalists to capture external reality to the best of their abilities.
After reading Gellhorn’s work, I personally prefer this style of journalism over the more traditional style. I like how she writes in a literary style and I think that the imagery she uses is effective in capturing the moment. Having said that, I think that there is a place in journalism for both styles. In some instances, it is important for journalists to maintain objectivity, while in others it is important to capture subjective and emotional experiences. I think that both styles help the reader make sense of reality and inform people, which are the primary goals of journalism.
I agree with the way you laid out Gans' explanation of objectivity versus Gellhorn's writing style and I also found Gellhorn's work to be effective and compelling, despite its obvious lack of objectivity. In your last paragraph, however, you mention that there is a place in journalism for both styles. I am not sure yet of my own opinion on this matter, but I imagine Gans would disagree with you. I think what you are saying is that a journalist could choose either the objective style or the subjective, literary style depending on the nature of the situation. Gans, I think, would say that analyzing the situation/context of the news and choosing a writing style based on that analysis would be to consider the implications of the news. Presumably, Gellhorn chose the more subjective style because she wanted to portray the human toll of war, the implications of such a portrayal being that readers would become empathetic toward the impacted citizens. On page 99, Gans explains that objectivity requires journalists to detach themselves from implications, to report the story without considering how the reporting will impact sources or readers. Personally, I'm not sure if I understand what Gans is getting at here or if it is even possible - I know as news editor for The Grizzly, I often choose stories to print because of their potential impact on or implications for Ursinus students/faculty/staff. I would definitely be interested in talking more about "implications" and objectivity in class.
DeleteI agree with you in how you described the differences between Gans and Gellhorn. Gans was definitely representative of what type of journalism is used in the United States. Gellhorn wrote beautifully in a literary style that was very easy to read and made the reader feel as if they could have been there in the moment she was writing.
DeleteThank you for speaking about schema in relation to how difficult is it to remain objective. I think that it is important aspect to look at because all journalists have their own way of making sense of the things around them. How do they learn to keep that out of their writing? You're right that it can't be possible to be 100 percent objective because schema are a huge part of our thought processes.
I also decided that I prefer Gellhorn's work after reading both chapters. I don't know how much room there is for this style of journalism anymore but I think it is very important to capture subjective and emotional experiences in writing. Ideally both styles, objective and subjective, should be used, depending on the topic and audience.
Also, Rosie, I think you're right about what Gans' wrote, I don't believe it is possible to not consider how the reporting will impact sources or readers. I would be interested in having this conversation as well.
Both chapters described two very different types of journalism and the ways that they are effective and ineffective for their audiences. While chapter 7 explained the ways in which journalists use objectivity as a method of creating effective journalism, it also showed how journalists have a hard time staying truly objective. Gans states that objectivity is “to be free from values and ideology,” (King and Chapman, 96) yet also clarifies how journalists mainly try to stay objective, but will still unconsciously have to use their values to explain their story. “When journalists must decide what is new, they must also make assumptions about what is old and therefore no longer newsworthy; when they report what is wrong or abnormal, they must also decide what is normal.” (King and Chapman, 102) This style of journalism is what is most commonly used in American journalism. Chapter 8, on the other hand, gave an example of a literary journalism, where the story is told with a plentitude of details and descriptions to give impact to the story. Gellhorn used ethnographic methods in order to gain insight into war stories. Journalists that immerse themselves in the event that they are covering are bound to feel strongly about portraying a side. However, I feel that there is still a sense of objectivity, which can be seen in both Gellhorn’s “The Besieged City” and “Bomber Boys”, through the stark and truthful descriptions of every moment. Even though the descriptions focus on the horrors of living through war, they are still true statements that implore the reader to feel emotion for the subject, but do not force the reader to do so.
ReplyDeleteI feel that objectivity is appropriate for the news. Both the styles from chapter 7 and 8 explain ways in which journalists must take the truth and portray it to the public, but I feel that the traditional and style of American journalism, with its focus on “complete” objectivity, is the one I favor more. I feel that it is more effective in spreading news to the public, and I think it leaves room for the audience to feel what they would like about the subject. While this objectivity is in fact not “complete” because of the fact that journalists must set a standard for themselves when speaking of what is important or unimportant to society, I think that in our time and the multitude of news sources offers plenty of different views for the public to choose from. I do enjoy literary journalism like Gellhorn, but I find that even though facts are used to describe the conditions, there is not enough emphasis on the balance of the two sides of the story to be as effective as objective and traditional style news. I think that the more literary style is effective in moving its readers more, but objectivity will give the reader more of a chance to determine how they feel about the subjects.
I like how you summarized the two chapters first before you went on to talk about what your take and opinion is on the topic of journalism and objectivity. I agree with you on some things like how you favor the traditional American style of journalism being to try and remain as objectivity as possible, I think that it is important for them to keep trying to remain object which makes the information seem more trustworthy and concise in my opinion. I agree with chapter 7 about how it’s hard to truly stay objective, I know that when I was finding information for my final paper I read that depending on the type of journalist they would treat the subject at hand differently. Even if the articles are objective, a specialized sports journalist is more likely to omit scandals with sports stars and focus more on the sport and that stars status in the sport. News journalist would focus on the scandal instead of the sport. It is choices like these that make me unable to completely agree with you that “objectivity will give the reader more of a chance to determine how they feel about the subject.” because the readers are already leaning a certain way on a subject just by choosing what paper and where in the paper they are getting their information. I think that literary style is just as important as objective style because it creates a better image for people who are on the fence or want more information. I also find that when it comes to literary journalism style the topic has to interest you in order to make you want to read it otherwise the reader would not want to waste his or her time reading it to try and pick out the information.
DeleteThe journalism styles described in these two chapters are drastically different. Gans explains that journalism must be focused on objectivity. However, Gan’s definition of objectivity is different than what I had previously perceived objectivity to be. He writes that objectivity is, “free from values and ideology; accordingly, journalists practice value exclusion” (p. 96). He explains that value exclusion is done through objectivity, the disregard of implications and the rejection of ideology (p. 96). My own definition of objectivity is alike to Gans’ regarding the exclusion of values. I think that to be objective, one must report things how they see them and be sure to avoid any personal opinions or values. According to Gans, opinions can be included in journalism and the piece can still be objective. Gans writes, “As long as their intent is to exclude conscious personal values, opinions become ‘subjective reactions,’ which follow from objectively gathered facts” (p. 97). In my opinion, I do not think that journalism is objective when opinions are included, even if they are considered “subjective reactions.”
ReplyDeleteAlthough I do not think opinions can be included if writing is to be considered purely objective, I do not think that they don’t have a place in journalism. I agree that opinions in the form of “subjective reactions” are acceptable in journalism, even if I do not think it is necessarily objective. Having these reactions, which are based on objective facts, allows the reader to engage with the journalism. It gives them something to relate to or disagree with and gets them thinking about the material.
Of the two styles described in chapters 7 and 8, I prefer Gan’s objectivity style is more appropriate in journalism. While I found Gellhorn’s descriptive, narrative style of journalism to be more enjoyable to read, I think that it is important to remain objective in journalism so that people can form their own opinions and make their own conclusions. Also, as Gans mentioned, objectivity protects journalism. I thought Gellhorn’s style was more powerful, moving and is definitely valuable. Overall, I think that these two styles are effective but objectivity is important in most types of traditional, news stories.
What really drew me to your blog post, Allison, is the fact that you included Gans’ quote from page 97 that says “As long as their intent is to exclude conscious personal values, opinions become ‘subjective reactions,’ which follow from objectively gathered facts.” I too was confused by this because from my understanding of objectivity and through what I have been taught through previous classes, like Media & Society (MCS 205), is that opinions are to be excluded from news in order to be objective, which then brings up the seemingly never-ending argument, does objectivity really exist? I certainly agree with you though when you say that having subjective reactions may allow the reader to have a more personal connection with what they read and therefore play the role of the more active reader than the often times, passive reader. At the same time, however, as you touched upon, objectivity allows the reader to form their own opinions and requires more from the reader. Although it may be rooted in the fact that I am simply more comfortable with the rules of objectivity, I agree that the rules of objectivity are fundamental when it comes to journalism and that in the grand scheme of journalism is much more successful.
DeleteSydney, you bring up an interesting point when you say that your opinion of objectivity may be rooted in the fact that you are more comfortable with it. I think a large part of that is the fact that objectivity is what we know and are used to as Americans. For instance, many other countries do not emphasize objectivity in their journalism. However, I do agree with you that journalism is at its best when it is objective. It provides us with the best information without added opinions or biases, and it allows the reader to form his or her own opinions. At the same time, I think it is important to acknowledge that there are other types of journalism that could be useful as well. I think that both styles that are discussed in chapter 7 and 8 can be useful for different stories or circumstances. However, I am not advocating completely throwing out the longstanding American journalistic value of objectivity and adopting a completely different style of journalism. Still, I think that there may still be room for different styles in American journalism without completely changing our core values.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAllison, I agree with your final standpoint that an objective approach to journalism is much more effective because it allows the readers to formulate their own opinions based purely on objective facts reported by journalists. Mainly I agree with this standpoint because I thought that the subjective writing by Gellhorn was very distracting and if anything resembled an excerpt from a non-fiction novel.
DeleteHowever, I do believe that subjectivity could successfully be incorporated into news and it would still be productive. Many people today, myself included, are not particularly as involved with the news and current events as one really should be in a democratic society. I think that subjectivity could be incorporated into the objective American style of reporting in order to present subjective perspectives on objective stories that are geared with a particular objective aligned to the reader's political and social platforms. For instance, if I generally agree with democratic political ideals, I would face no objection in reading a subjective news piece written by a democratic journalist. By incorporating these subjective news outlets into our system of journalism, those who have less time or interest in closely following news and politics would be able to read the news with subjectivity geared towards their particular attitudes and beliefs.
At the same time, though, if such a system were to exist that would include subjectivity in mainstream news medium, it would also be necessary to uphold the current system of objective news reporting. I think that if subjective and objective news medium were offered simultaneously in equal amounts, there would be different options when it comes to receiving news as a reader.
Overall, if most of the colorul writing and novel-esque layouts of subjective journalism were removed, I think that subjectivity could very well be appropriate in news reporting. But based on Chapters 7 and 8 alone, I would agree that the authors' descriptions of objective reporting is more appropriate news.
I do agree with what you are saying here and I as well thought the same thing about objectivity in journalism. I had a different definition for objectivity and after reading these two chapters it has changed a bit and I disagree with this definition. I think when you are including responses to a topic it is no longer truly objective and there is a bit of bias with this. I also agree with you that it makes sense to have more of objectivity in reporting so readers can make their own decisions versus being pursuaded to one way or the other.
DeleteAlli, I agree with your point about objectivity being important for readers to form their own opinions. It also made me think that journalism that is not objective would be destructive for society. If everyone was immediately exposed to other's opinions before formulating their own I feel this would cause for a disastrous outcome. I think your blog was very well thought out. I like that you agreed with and disagreed with Gans in a constructive way.
DeleteAfter analyzing chapters 7 and 8 in King and Chapman my memory was refreshed about the study of objectivity in journalism and its certain functions. Objectivity is very important when writing basic feature stories such as articles that are crime related, government related, or anything that could be perceived in a negative manner for the sake of sales and general patriotic gratitude. However, there are times when subjectivity is appropriate and when subjectivity due to organization is mistaken for genuine objectivity.
ReplyDeleteIt is nearly impossible for a journalist to be 100% objective when digging for information pre-article, however once writing commences i believe it is important to appear objective even if some of the facts presented are blatantly opinion based. To make this idea more clearly presentable, I believe there is a difference between appearing objective and actually being objective. King and Chapman discuss how journalists must apply personal detachment from all articles in order to remain objective, however there is always subjectivity within articles based on the facts that journalists choose to present. Though the facts themselves are objective, the order in which they are presented are completely the choice of the journalist and editors. In order to be truly objective a publication must take a route such as the one used by USA Today, where stories are far more brief and to the point then they are in liberal or conservative based publications.
The truth is that objectivity takes away from the excitement of an article, so I believe the more subjective an author can be while still appearing objective leads to better publications.
I hope all of this makes sense because it is very hard to explain.
I believe that subjectivity is important in some genres such as sports. Sports writers like to introduce humor into their pieces which make them more relatable and genuine. Most sports sections in every national publication contain a fair amount of subjectivity usually to give readers a feel of local pride and bias towards other geographic locations. This strategy works well financially for companies and writers because of strong followings by readers based on bias.
Gellhorns writing style presented in chapter 8, though not widely used in U.S. publications, certainly has its place as appropriate especially at times of great crisis. Sometimes, especially in efforts to rally patriotism or to create social movements, it is important to be completely subjective and absorb the reader into the situation so they can feel real emotion rather than create a general opinion based on research and fact.
What I just wrote might be hard to follow, but in general I think both objectivity and subjectivity have their appropriate places in journalism based on genre and patriotic importance.
Satchel, I definitely understood and agree with what you are saying. I was drawn to Gellhorn's writing style because of the excitement and intrigue that she was able to create. Obviously I don't think that we should completely abandon objective journalism in favor of the more subjective literary style that Gellhorn utilizes. Objectivity is crucial in compiling facts about what actually happened, and in not allowing personal opinions or subjectivities get in the way of reporting these facts. However, I do feel that both styles can have a place in journalism. I personally think that in some instances, subjective narratives can help bring an event to life and can be used in conjunction with objective journalism. Although the obvious subjective nature of this style doesn't provide an objective account of what actually happened, it can allow the reader to have a more intimate connection with the story. I do think that it would be difficult to implement the more subjective literary style within the United States because objectivity is such a pervasive value within American Journalism.
DeleteSatchel, I also followed what you wrote and agreed with it. I am of the opinion that both types of journalism should be used today,but they definitely should be used in the appropriate areas based on genre. I think it was interesting how you brought up sports. Sports reporting is definitely more subjective. This is especially in places that love their sports teams. Philly comes to mind. Another interesting point you brought up was the reporting of social movements. I believe it is hard to keep objective when reporting social movements because of the emotion/passion involved with the movements. Both of these styles have their uses, but I agree with Steven, the United States values objectivity more in journalism.
DeleteOne thing that I agree on with Satchel is how difficult being objective in journalism can be today, but also what an important role it plays in any type of journalism. Staying objective is the main goal of every journalist since this is what draws all different types of readers into the stories. I found it interesting when we were discussing in class one day, how some newspapers in Europe happen to be certain colors, and the papers are colored based off certain political parties which are catered to what these individuals want to read. This completely takes away the idea of objectivity, and I’m glad our society does not report like that.
DeleteI also agree with Satchel on the point he brought up the different cases where subjectivity is key, such as in sports or stories of patriotism. This idea also made me think of when journalists cover stories of disaster or catastrophes, since these stories can be difficult to report on. With stories that involve patriotism or disasters, lots of emotion can come with these stories. Journalists have to try their best to control their emotions and not let this reflect in their writings, and staying subjective at all times. Reporting simply the facts and everything that has been proven to be true is important in these stories, keeping the emotional background out.
Being an objective reporter makes sure that all types of audiences are going to feel comfortable reading an article, and having all different types of people being able relate to these stories. As Gellhorns mentioned in Chapter 8, there is going to be a certain time and place for these different styles of writing, however, in most cases and especially in our society, subjectivity is vital for all stories.
I agree, too, agree with you Satchel that subjectivity is important in different settings. For example, a school paper is one of the most relevant examples of the setting where subjectivity is important because as Lule said the school paper should be "a cheerleader."
DeleteAnother example of the most appropriate settings for subjectivity could also be a local newspaper, like the Philly Inquirer. Subjectivity is seen most in their sports sections, because most likely reader will be a Philadelphia sports fan.
While subjectivity is valued by some audiences, I agree that Americans are satisfied most when the news is reported impartially, rather than in a bias manner.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading “Key Readings in Journalism” chapters 7 and 8, by King and Chapman I had a much clearer understanding of objectivity in journalism and how it works. From these chapters the reader was able to see the pros and cons to objectivity in journalism. The reader learned that journalist try to use objectivity to create a good story for the public but often times it is really hard to truly stay objective. Being objective in journalism means not being bias and trying to stay away from the traditional values of society. This becomes extremely hard for journalist because they are trying to remain objective in the articles that they are writing but to get their point across sometimes they have to stray away from objectivity so the reader understands what they are trying to say. While chapter seven focuses on objectivity, chapter eight talks about literary journalism. These two aspects of journalism are very different while objectivity is non-bias with just the facts, literary journalism has much more detail for the reader and gives them a better understanding of what actually happened. Both of these aspects in journalism can be used in many different stories. The example in the book for literary journalism when the author wrote about the war story giving a lot of detail and description explaining to the reader what actually happened. After looking at both of these approaches I was able to see the pros and cons to each side of these two aspects brought up in chapters seven and eight. It was clear to me that pure objectivity is what journalist try to achieve and that is what American Journalism strives for. I think this makes the most sense for journalism and it is the best for the public. When the public reads a story it makes sense that it should be objective so they can reader can develop their own opinion. While literary journalism provides detail to try to persuade a reader to choose the side of the writer, objective journalism allows for the reader to make their own choice which I think is the best thing possible.
ReplyDeletePaul, I really liked how you identified that these King & Chapman chapters focused on such issues as the pros and cons of journalism objectivity and the constant struggle to remain unbiased. It is true that when the public initially reads a news story, they are more prone to form their own opinions or biases. Contrary to stories in the news, are literary pieces which more or less have the reader choose a side or determine if they were swayed one way or the other.
DeleteI agree with your points and summaries and think this understanding of King & Chapman's points in these two chapters is a good basis to start discussion and find examples of potential media biases or objectivity in the world of journalism.
Being a Media & Communications major, it is inevitable that pertinent themes of journalism will be discussed (and perhaps repeated) in major courses. In particular, objectivity in the journalism world is one key area which focuses on the importance of remaining unbiased when writing news stories. One exception to this rule is of course editorial writing, but for a journalist to take an unbiased approach to their work is a must because it could hinder the overall potential of the story. In literary pieces, a journalist is given a little more leeway to express their opinions and write in a style that encourages readers to be persuaded or given a message that calls for an audience to choose sides. Objectivity when dealing with journalism is essential and a significant principle of journalism that I believe is necessary when working in the profession.
ReplyDeleteFairness in writing and non-partisanship are important facets of this objectivity that call for straight facts rather than a writer or reporters opinion surrounding a particular subject. In Chapters 7 and 8 in King and Chapman’s “Key Readings in Journalism,” they talk about simply “doing journalism.” One cannot just “do journalism” without an understanding and also an appreciation for the concept of journalism objectivity. A journalist needs to respect the fact that keeping their opinion and emotion out of a news story makes for a better piece because readers will not develop major issues with what they are saying. When the facts are given or a story is chronicled, journalists are more inclined to provide unbiased, quality journalism that gets to the point of the story. Without objectivity in the field of journalism, biased and opinionated writing would be constantly present, ultimately leading to more debates and frequent issues when it comes to journalism.
Marina, I completely agree with your blog post. I also feel that objectivity is an important part in conveying news. Not only does it make for a better piece when opinions are kept out, but it also ensures that the readers are getting an accurate report of the story. Involving opinions and emotions may get in the way of major, important details of the story. I do believe that there is a place for journalism that is not objective, but I agree that the prominent journalists should be skilled in objectivity.
DeleteAfter reading chapters seven and eight it is very clear that there are a variety of ways to approach journalism. In chapter seven, Gans' studies on the work of journalists is discussed. This work showed that journalists aim to be objective in their work, and detached. He provided examples of journalists not registering to vote in order to keep their detachment to the work they may potentially be covering. From my experience, this approach of journalism is the one that is most traditionally seen in the news around us. The news we read on a daily basis, with the exception of editorials, aims to be relatively unbiased.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, in Chapter eight, Martha Gellhorn provided a quite different perspective on journalism. Gellhorn involved herself in her writing, writing the news more of a story than a statement of facts.
Between these two different styles, there is a question about what approach is the superior and more appropriate one for news journalism. Objective, by my definition, is something that does not include opinion that could frame a story in any certain way that strays from straight facts. I believe that this is the superior way to convey a news story.
When a news reporter is detached from their story, it provides a much more accurate account of the events. Due to this, the news is more available to the general public. Despite one's background or beliefs, the news will convey the information that that person is seeking to achieve.
While this type of news is incredibly important for the public, I also believe that there is a place for another type of journalism. Journalism such as Gellhorn's, or the Colbert Report, provides different ways of reporting stories that may add interest and intrigue for readers. There is entertainment value as well as a value of giving the reader a different perspective in the manor that Gellhorn approaches journalism.