What Does It Mean to Be Objective?

[talkObjectivism]

By Michael from talkObjectivism.com,cross-posted by MetaBlog

I had a discussion today with the editor of the paper for which I work. I had, days before, handed in a piece on an AIDS awareness event. Sections of my piece were taken and combined with another author’s piece in order to avoid the printing of some facts which I brought up in the original piece. Now, I understand why the piece was not run in its originality. It was not my best work and was written in a slight state of emotional flurry, and some of the information I highlighted in my account might have caused a backlash. I do not blame them for not running it, and was in fact surprised that they used even parts of it. Discussing this though, one editor commented that the piece I turned in was too “sensational” and another commented that I should not “sensationalize” things. The main editor did not say that I was unobjective in my reporting per se, but that I focused too much on one aspect. I then commented that we perhaps did not have the same understanding of “objective.” I told her that being objective meant being totally honest and truthful. She agreed, but with the caveat that one should be unbiased as well. This began my thinking; what exactly does it mean to be objective, and how does this effect the nature of thinking and with a more specific focus on the field of journalism?

Objective means, quoting from the Merriam Webster Dictionary, “expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.” Bias means “an inclination of temperament or outlook  ; especially : a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment.” Another definition listed for objective is; “relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence —used chiefly in medieval philosophy b: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind.” So then, it is possible, using those definitions, that a part of being objective is to be “unbiased.” But what do these terms mean when people use them today? Objective, using the provided definitions, can be perhaps rephrased as relation of facts without imparting value to your narrative. Is this how the term is used today? Today, unbiased is often related to telling a story without taking a side or without presenting any facts in a manner which could lead to or hint at judgement. Is this being objective though? The other definition of objective states “relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence.” Can an account be objective if certain facts are ignored or unstressed in the name of being unbiased? I do not think so.

Now as to the event I attended as part of my job for the school paper; it was an AIDS awareness event sponsored by the Beacon of Light Baptist Church. This was by no means a secular event. In the first minutes of the ceremony the entire room broke out into dance and Gospel music. The guest-speaker, a gynecologist, told the audience half-way through her own presentation that AIDS was the Devil’s way of “taking us out.” Afterward an Evangelist came on and related how her husband had gotten AIDS by cheating on her with another man. She also related to the audience not to “go gay.” During the Question and Answer period the guest doctor stated that there was “no such thing as safe sex,” and then went on to make several unverified statements attacking the effectiveness of condom use.

All of this information was cut from the final article.

I was told my article was sensationalistic. What I was reporting was sensational. To be objective in this matter, it was not well written, and I perhaps did not take the greatest care in conveying these facts in a manner that did appear totally rational. I did make note of the valid scientific information presented, but this does not change the fact that the presentation was a religiously motivated and attempting to scare young African American women into religious abstinence with misinformation and mystic beliefs. I do not think that is objective in the least to ignore these facts at all, even in the name of being “unbiased” or “fair.”

To be objective is to consider all the facts of reality, and, as a corollary, judging them and giving them value. To ignore certain facts in the name of being “unbiased” is to be dishonest. Just as you do not want to give facts that create a false image of an entity, you should not withhold information which would do the same. It perhaps is true that the man who reports should not hand judgement to those he reports to, but it is not his place to decide which facts should and should not be included solely on the basis of bias. Facts are facts and nothing can change that. Some facts are not essential, such as the ethnicity of the man the Evangelist’s husband slept with. Some facts, such as the rhetoric and obvious motivation of the assembly, are. Not making explicit judgement is part of the reporting process, but avoiding facts because they would lead to a negative judgement is not objective in the least.

Was my article objective though? Looking it over now with a cool head, I feel that it is. It does not seem that sensationalistic looking at it now after several days have gone by. It could use some editing and touching up, I can see that now. One phrase does come across as perhaps condescending, although that is a honest mistake on my part and not an act of conscious malevolence.

Ultimately, to be objective is to take in all facts of reality and integrate them, even those that would make people uncomfortable or angry. Anything less is simply evading the truth in part, and in whole.

Re-posted from Meta-blog