We shall support no party
Throughout early American history, newspapers were almost always closely associated with, if not outright sponsored by, political factions and parties. They were vehicles for politicians to campaign, and editors were never afraid to espouse one opinion over another across every page. It was accepted by the public as the normal way for newspapers to conduct their business.
New York Herald Building, general view of Herald Square in 1908, intersection of sixth Avenue and Broadway, West 34th and West 35th streets, New York, NY. Photo via Wikimedia Commons
James Gordon Bennett Sr. started to change that in 1835, when he launched the New York Herald.
“We shall support no party—be the agent of no faction or coterie, and we care nothing for any election, or any candidate from president down to constable,” Bennett wrote in the Herald’s first edition.
While this was groundbreaking language for the time, it hardly meant the Herald held a neutral opinion in politics, or was a champion of ethics. Bennet still frequently supported the “Know Nothing” and Democratic Parties, and adopted a pro-slavery stance during the American Civil War.
Nonetheless, the New York Herald started the trend toward balanced reporting in American newspapers. Before long, issues that American society is wrestling with again today started to surface.
The Influence of Advertisers
The commercialization of newspapers was actually one of the first drivers toward objectivity.
Advertisers don’t want their products and services placed next to overly-partisan or controversial content. Studies have shown that people tend to associate things with each other when they are placed on a page together, even if there’s no clear relationship. Advertisers put pressure on publishers to avoid placing their ads next to highly partisan, violent, or controversial material. They don’t want their products associated with those things. This means those stories become less profitable for the newspaper, and so they are less-often pursued.
This concept continues to influence what is allowed to be published online today, with advertisers pressuring platforms to mediate content. They withdraw advertising dollars from websites and social media platforms like Twitter that refuse to do so. Sometimes people call this “canceling,” but it’s really simple market capitalism.
Marketing professionals want to get their products in front of as many people as possible, so a publisher who alienates significant portions of the public is not an attractive advertising partner. Newspapers that rely on advertising to pay their expenses easily find themselves under pressure to keep their content moderate on every topic.
Telegraph Technology
Morse Key (from 1900). This Morse key was originally used by Gotthard railway. Image via Wikimedia Commons
In 1844, the introduction of the telegraph system created a new reason to stick with bare facts in reporting. Each telegraph wire could only send one message at a time, so there was often stiff competition for time on the communication service, and it became expensive.
As demand for telegraph time in big cities grew, the Associated Press was first formed in 1848, by New York newspapers looking to share the expense of wired news from Boston. They began expanding these services and selling them to other regional papers, and the organization continued to grow from there.
The telegram transmissions were also frequently interrupted, especially during the American Civil War. It became crucial for reporters to transmit the most important parts of a story first when they had the chance. So reporters wrote their stories with the most significant, unvarnished facts right up front, and left any commentary to local editors to add before print.
While telegrams are no longer used to relay the news, the Associated Press still distributes unbiased, facts-first news across the world for local papers to reprint. Many newspapers, including the Daily Mining Gazette in Houghton, are members, and both contribute and draw from the pool of news articles.
Ethical Efforts
The best reason to strive for objective, unbiased reporting is in the name of ethics. The Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics, however, does not use the words ‘unbiased’, or ‘objective’.
Among other things, it says;
‘Diligently seek subjects of news coverage to allow them to respond to criticism or allegations of wrongdoing,’
‘Support the open and civil exchange of views, even views they find repugnant,’
and ‘Give voice to the voiceless’.
These all fall under the heading ‘Seek Truth and Report It.’ The truth is unbiased. A journalist who strives to discover and report the truth and only the truth is naturally as unbiased as any person can be.
The Pitfall of “Objectivity”
Placing the idea of objectivity above the idea of truth has led to a dangerous trend in reporting, sometimes referred to as ‘both-sidesism’ or ‘both-sides reporting’.
It isn’t that reporting all sides of an issue is a bad thing. The problem comes when one side has much more evidence and support, but a reporter gives both equal coverage. Or if a reporter omits information that would undercut one side’s position in order to “be fair.”
It sets up viewers to feel that either concept is equally valid based on the presentation, when in fact one has much less support or evidence. It can create an illusion of respectability, prop up unsupported positions, or just increase doubt in viewers. These doubts can then be exploited by politicians and corporations.
It’s very important for journalists to strive for objectivity in their reporting. It helps readers to trust them, gives their writing broader appeal, and keeps them from being blinded to ideas different from their own. However, objectivity is not the highest guiding principle of journalism. That’s the truth.