Journalists reject objectivity as an 'outmoded,' 'failed concept:' 'World view of middle-aged white men'

A new report featured dozens of journalists and media experts who widely reject the concept of "objectivity," which was once a longstanding principle in the news industry. 

The lengthy piece, titled "Beyond Objectivity," published last week by Arizona State University's Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication put a spotlight on what it deems a "generational shift" when it comes to objectivity. 

"[W]hen misunderstood, journalistic ‘objectivity’ or ‘balance’ can lead to so-called ‘bothsides-ism’ – a dangerous trap when covering issues like climate change or the intensifying assault on democracy," co-authors Leonard Downie Jr. and Andrew Heyward wrote in the report's introduction. 

"At the same time, some news media reformers deride ‘objectivity’ as an unachievable or misleading goal, and many journalism practitioners no longer use the term. Newsroom leaders are confronting a generation of increasingly diverse young journalists struggling to reconcile traditional news standards with their concepts of ‘cultural context,’ ‘identity,’ ‘point of view,’ and ‘advocacy journalism.’"

LIBERAL COLUMBIA JOURNALISM REVIEW OFFERS SCATHING INDICTMENT OF NEW YORK TIMES' RUSSIAGATE COVERAGE

They continued, "Restoring a belief in the value of fair, fact-based reporting – trustworthy news – is arguably more important than ever. Surveys consistently show that most news consumers want journalism that is free of bias. And reliable news coverage is a cornerstone of democracy. But that requires a fresh vision for how to achieve that goal – a vision that replaces outmoded ‘objectivity’ with a more relevant articulation of journalistic standard."

Washington Post executive editor Sally Buzbee called advocacy in newsrooms a "real issue." She wants readers to make up their own minds but said she doesn't use the term objectivity "because it has become a political football."

"If the term objectivity means the world view of middle-aged white men, it has become attacked as a word that is used to keep the status quo," Buzbee said. 

WASHINGTON POST BOSS SALLY BUZBEE FACING INTERNAL STRIFE, WAS TOLD SHE HASN'T EARNED TRUST OF STAFFERS: REPORT

The New York Times executive editor Joseph Kahn hasn't banned the word "objectivity" but rejected the notion that his paper has to reach "neutrality" in certain stories. 

"There is no such thing as perfect neutrality, and defaulting to ‘both sides’ framing on divisive issues can be insufficient and misleading," Kahn previously told New York magazine. "But the journalistic process needs to be objective and transparent, and we need to challenge ourselves and our readers to understand all the facts and explore a wider range of perspectives."

Others have moved on from the principle of objectivity entirely.

"Objectivity was wrong, a failed concept," former Atlanta Journal-Constitution editor turned ASU journalism professor Julie Wallace said. "It was a mistake to head down the path of dishonest objectivity."

"Objectivity is not even possible," ProPublica editor-in-chief Stephen Engelberg said. "I don’t even know what it means." 

"The journalist’s job is truth, not objectivity," The Marshall Project founder Neil Barsky insisted. "It is getting close to the reality, notwithstanding that we all have biases and passions." 

"The consensus among younger journalists is that we got it all wrong… We are the problem. Objectivity has got to go," The San Francisco Chronicle editor-in-chief Emilio Garcia-Ruiz similarly expressed. "They are willing to share their lived experiences to call out bulls---, despite their status in the newsroom. There can sometimes be a chasm between them and the older veteran reporters."

AP FACT-CHECKED ON TWITTER FOR CLAIMING ‘LATINX’ DIVIDES HISPANICS: ‘ONLY 3% OF LATINOS USE THIS TERM’

St. Louis Post-Dispatch sports editor Erik Hall also noted the "age divide growing" in the newsroom, saying, "I think more veteran journalists think ‘objective’ means tell both sides. And I think a younger generation is coming up feeling strongly that, on some issues, there is a fair way to tell it, and telling both sides isn’t the fair, or fairest, way to tell a story."

Former Associated Press executive editor Kathleen Carroll said "objectivity" reflects the viewpoint of wealthy White men and hasn't sued the term since the 1970s. 

"It’s objective by whose standards? And that standard seems to be White, educated, fairly wealthy guys," Carroll said. "And when people don’t feel like they find themselves in news coverage, it’s because they don’t meet that definition."

The 19th co-founder Emily Ramshaw similarly viewed objectivity as being seen "through the lens of largely White, straight men."

Saeed Ahmed, NPR's former director of digital news, viewed objectivity through a racial identity lens, saying, "As a journalist of color, I have been told time and again that my identity doesn’t matter, that I have to shed it all to worship at the altar of objectivity," adding, "I bristle at that notion. My lived experiences should inform what I cover."

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Journalist Wesley Lowery previously wrote that the media "has allowed what it considers objective truth to be decided almost exclusively by white reporters and their mostly white bosses. And those selective truths have been calibrated to avoid offending the sensibilities of white readers." 

In the report's conclusion, Downie Jr. and Heyward, former bosses at The Washington Post and CBS News respectively, wrote, "[J]ournalism must address the needs and aspirations of our increasingly diverse society more effectively than it has in the past. That means striving to reach not only an audience, but all audiences, and no longer with one-size-fits all, traditionally White male ‘objectivity,’ a journalistic concept that has lost its relevance."