Joho the Blog
|
|
|
July 28, 2004
At this point, thirty years after New Journalism and Post-Modernism, you'd think we wouldn't still need to have this argument, but, here goes: Objectivity isn't objective. Or, as my friend AKMA puts it, "The only people you can trust to be objective are the ones who know that objectivity can’t be reached." If you need proof of this, look no further than the lead article in today's Boston Globe. I have no quarrel at all with the article. In fact, I read it with interest this morning over breakfast. Glen Johnson does a fine job reporting on the second night of speeches at the Democratic Convention. It is, by the canons of professional journalism, objective and balanced. And it makes perfectly clear what others have said: Objectivity is a form of rhetoric. What's perhaps especially instructive is that its content is another form of rhetoric: the big-tent political speech. "Kennedy Leads the Attack: Convention speakers rip Bush in shift of rhetoric," says the headline. Keeping in mind that reporters don't get to write their headlines (yet another type of rhetoric), it nevertheless reflects the article's upshot. It begins:
Readers can quibble with what Johnson considers to be significant enough to make it into the lead. No mention of Obama, who lit the largest fire under the crowd, going with the current "master narrative" about THK that she is an outspoken woman (ooooh, imagine that!), and falling for the Democrats' publicity stunt of putting Ron Jr. on stage. But a lead by its nature has to leave out most of the story, so arguments about it are inevitable. Instead consider this only in terms of the conflict of rhetorical forms. When Ted Kennedy was sitting on his porch in Hyannis putting together his speech, he undoubtedly thought about how to structure it in order to crank the crowd up. His speech doesn't begin with a lead, any more than mystery stories begin with a declaration of who done it. He thought more like a composer than like a journalist. He used phrases that he thought would pull us forward and up. He had no information to convey; he wanted instead to express the state of the country from his point of view in a way that would move a crowd of 35,000. The result was, in my view, a speech he could be proud of, although not the best in his career. Now listen to the speech through Johnson's ears. (Yes, I'm being presumptive.) Johnson's job was not simply to transcribe events. For that, we could just read the transcript or watch the rerun. He knew that Kennedy wasn't going to reveal some new fact — "This just in! Osama is W's godgather!" — so he was looking for significance elsewhere. He noticed a pattern among the speeches that gave him the lens through which to present Kennedy's speech: The Democratic speakers are being more negative about Bush than they were last night. It's an interesting, defensible observation. But it's an artifact of the reporter's desire to come up with a lead. It was neither the substance nor the intention of the speechmaker ("Fire up a crowd, in part by attacking Bush" is different from "Democrats go negative on second nioght"), and it wasn't the effect ("We really need Kerry to be president!") that the night had on the crowd. That's not a criticism. It's merely to point out that rhetorical forms, such as objective journalism, make unnatural demands, especially when applied to other forms of rhetoric. Objectivity is, as Heidegger says, a peculiarly modern mood. It is a form of discourse and, as such, structures thought, frames the questions, determines the content and the rhythm of a piece of writing. It's a useful form of rhetoric, long may it wave. But it is not what it represents itself as: A privileged way of expressing the truth. The newspaper article about Kennedy's speech can be accurate or not, fair or not, but it is no more true than the shouts of those in the Fleet Center who found it heartening. There literally can be no objective account of a political speech, for in every case the account must transform a different rhetorical form, and that requires an act of literary interpretation. And what in human experience escapes all forms of rhetoric? Rhetoric ultimately means the structuring of experience through and in language, whether spoken or not. And even if you can find something we experience outside of language, the imposition of the rhetoric of journalism would be even ruder. Further confirmation: Compare the Globe's headline with the Washington Post's: "Speakers Focus on Healing Divisions: Newcomers Set Themes." It's the exact opposite of the Globe's, emphasizing healing and newcomers. It's not that one is wrong and the other is right, but neither is objective. danah boyd in Salon talks about blogging, journalism and objectivity. A snippet: "Properly evaluating the role of bloggers at the convention requires escaping the most obvious framing paradigms." Go, danah! Bloggers look to the media like home-office media because "media," "publishing," "journalism" and "broadcasting" are the framing terms the media naturally brings to public writing. But that frame gets in the way, I believe, of seeing what's actually going on. Posted
by D. Weinberger at July 28, 2004 03:39 PM
|
Comments
I strongly agree with you. What "objectivity" means in this context is "You have no right to question my narrative."
If you expect readers to passively accept your version at face value, without question, then you are a journalist. If you think that only a fool would do so, then you are a blogger.
Posted by: Arnold Kling | July 28, 2004 04:07 PM
I agree to that objectivity as journalists conceive it does not exist.
And you certainly deserve sympathy after being treated so poorly by the USA Today reporter.
However, not to criticize you, I worry that many blog writers become complete relativists, and conclude from the fact of unachievable objectivity, that any old rant is equivalent to any journalistic report, since we all have our own truth.
Posted by: Seth Finkelstein | July 28, 2004 04:59 PM
Ancillary to Mr. Kling's point:
Q. Why do the narratives of news organizations need such auctoritas?
A. Because "objectivity" posits the idea of something that is not advertising, not untrue, not opinion, and not offensive. This creates the optimal environmental conditions for advertising.
Posted by: Tom Matrullo | July 28, 2004 05:07 PM
Ancillary to Tom Matrullo's point:
Q. Why are the rants of popular talkshow hosts (Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Dobbs with his xenophobic protectionist mantra) so consistent and repetitive?
A. Because the rants are safe with the audience, which creates the optimal environment for advertising.
By far the most interesting news story of the week comes from the sports world: Ricky Williams' retirement. I have yet to hear a single sports talk radio host seriously come down in favor of (or less than vehemently opposed to) Ricky's decision. One popular SoCal host (I don't know if he's still national), Lee "Hacksaw" Hamilton, likened Ricky's decision to his own situation as an employee of ClearChannel. Hacksaw said that the people at ClearChannel have been very good to him and he would not leave them without siginificant notice if he got a better opportunity, like hockey or a permanent pro-football announcing gig. Unbelievable. I can't believe how many people buy into this chumpish way of thinking, but it is the "safe" opinion. Wouldn't all of us like to be in a position where we could just say "guh-bye!" when we've had enough? Yet Ricky Williams is denounced as selfish, greedy, not thinking of his team, blah blah blah. Not five minutes later, Hacksaw spoke about how the Raiders released all-Pro defensive back Rod Woodson because he failed to pass a physical due to a knee problem. Not even a hint of irony.
Posted by: Brad Hutchings | July 28, 2004 07:07 PM
Sethf, there is always the danger of relativism because there is some truth in relativism. And, from my POV, relativism's problem is that it oversimplifies the complexity of our standpoints. But, notice that buried in my original entry is the aside that a journalistic article can be accurate or not and fair or not. Each form of rhetoric has its own criteria...which create the optimal environment for advertising?
Posted by: David Weinberger | July 28, 2004 10:05 PM
I am appalled and disappointed at role of CNN with the coverage of the Democratic convention.
As a longtime loyal CNN watcher,I am also struck by the arrogance of almost all the reporters, when they are interviewing a Democratic guest, who is the expert on the selected topic, how the reporter initiates confrontation of that guest, and interjects his or her own personal view and then turns to a Republican guest to ask for their final evaluative perspective on the topic. I don't recall this lack of respect before, but now can note how of late CNN is been manipulated further away from reporting the news to influencing the news. Is that journalism at its best?
I was appalled Monday evening watching the interview of CNN's Wolfe Blizter did with the former President Jimmy Carter (the Nobel Prize winner, the observer on fair elections around the world, and the distinguished expert on peace seeking). The first question he insulted President Carter with was about how would he, President Carter, could think Bush wasn't doing all those things he was thought should be done. DUH!!!!!! Did not Wolfe just listen to the speech! This tactic leaves one to think Wolfe had been instructed by someone to stand up for him and 'straighten out' President Carter? WOW.
So Wolfe believes he and Bush have more experience and expertise than President Carter does when it comes to the view of the US around the world?
Since this is the strategy that has been planned for the Democratic convention, it is imperative the same CNN interviewers continue that process when the Republican convention in order to show "balance" and then following that convention examine that strategy as one of those very tactics that is negatively altering the "world view" of USA.
I have always enjoyed and respected the various CNN interviewers, but it is so sad these quality people have been pushed into group think to sell out their ethics for a few nights of employment.
Since this same style has continued with each day's coverage, I have voted with my fingers, and switched channels and started a writing formum for my objections.
Posted by: Anonymous | July 29, 2004 02:29 PM
"Objectivity is, as Heidegger says, a peculiarly modern mood."
Where does Heidegger say this?
I know he says that in metaphysical propositions "all objectivity is as such also subjectivity" (ob. cit. "Existence and Being") while logical and mathematical propositions remain objective, but I don't recall him equating objectivity with a Stimmung.
I'm not trying to be nit-picky here; there's more Heidegger out there than I have time to read.
Posted by: enowning | July 29, 2004 06:39 PM
Enowning, this would require either remembering or re-reading Heidegger, neither of which is within my capabilities. I dimly remember Heidegger talking this way, but it's possible I corrupted it. Sorry.
Posted by: David Weinberger | July 30, 2004 05:00 PM
Sunday 10-24 04,Jessie Jackson and George Bushs Born Again Christain Minister(Comwellunsure of his name)debated on CNN,Comwell told the tv,audience that his followers were voting for Bush,but not Chaney then he became radical and told everyone to KILL,KILL,KILL.the terrorists,follow them to the end of the earth and KILLthem,is this the reason Bush became A member of their assoc. he broke the 10 commandments,God says revenge is mine, all mineIam not a deeply religious,this was sick,coming from a man of the cloth.
Posted by: Arlene Zibuck | October 26, 2004 01:36 PM