Great words on the dangers of "obejectivity in media, ie FALSE BALANCE

Still ringing true today. Scary. I've clipped and shortened the article. see full page here:

http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reports/99-4_00-1NR/Carroll_Seven_Deadly.html


July 1955
The Seven Deadly Virtues
By Wallace Carroll
Today we must produce a newspaper for the citizen.


Deadly Virtue No. 1 "Objectivity"

Objectivity is...a fine ideal.

I have no objection to the ideal itself but only to our rigid and almost doctrinaire interpretation of objectivity (and) this narrow concept of objectivity sometimes brings us pretty close to the borders of irresponsibility.

Among the American newspapermen who have been debating this subject there seem to be two divisions. The first might be called the fundamentalists, or the apostles of the literal word; the second, the liberal interpreters.

The fundamentalists believe that bias is inseparable from human nature...So reporters, they say, should simply get the facts and present them with as much detachment as they can, but should not try to fill in the background, interpret or analyze, especially when they are handling an explosive subject. The reader can be left to figure out the meaning of the facts for himself, or the editorial writers can help him out in a day or two. (FOX NEWS, anyone?)

The liberal interpreters believe that this strict interpretation of objectivity leads to serious abuses. They argue that, especially in times like these, a newspaper is not doing its job if it merely gives a reader "one- or two- dimensional reporting;" it must add a third dimension meaning. Consequently, newspapers should encourage reporters to dig down through the surface facts and fill in the background, interpret and analyze.

To the liberal interpreters it seems that the fundamentalists would permit the reporter to report the spiel of the gold brick salesman but not to point out that the clay is showing through a crack in the gilt.

Why, they ask, should newspapermen refrain from putting a twist on the ball and then permit someone else to pitch the reader a curve?

Eric Sevareid put it this way:

"Our rigid formulae of so-called objectivity, beginning with the wire agency bulletins and reportsthe warp and woof of what the papers print and the broadcasters voiceour flat, one-dimensional handling of the news, have given the lie the same prominence and impact that truth is given; they have elevated the influence of fools to that of wise men; the ignorant to the level of the learned; the evil to the level of the good."

These comments of Mr. Sevareid, like much of the recent debate on objectivity, were inspired in part by the tactics of Senator McCarthy.

I am sure that if a scholarly study were made of the part played by American newspapers in the rise of Senator McCarthy, it would show that the Senator understood the deadly virtues of the American press much more clearly than we do ourselves. Such a study would show, I am sure, that Senator McCarthy was able to exploit our rigid "objectivity" in such a way as to make the newspapers his accomplices.

That is why I say that objectivity interpreted too literally can approach the borders of irresponsibility.


...when a reporter has solid evidence that a statement is misleading, should he merely report the statement or should he give the reader the benefit of his additional knowledge?

The times are serious enough and American newspapermen are mature enough for us to apply to ourselves a stricter discipline...

...as we make the transition, let us lay down certain safeguards. First, we must resolve that in bringing a third dimension to reporting, we shall subject everyone to the same treatment. Secondly, we must find, train and pay the kind of reporters who can do three- dimensional reporting. Thirdly, we must back them up...


Wallace Carroll is Executive Editor of the Winston-Salem Journal and Sentinel.