The role of objectivity in the wake of tragedy
Brendan Pedersen

Right before I went to bed early Monday morning, my brain dimly registered a news alert from the Associated Press: in Nevada, a Clark County hospital was reporting “multiple injuries” from a country music festival. When my eyes opened a few hours later, I saw numbers: 50+ dead, 400+ wounded, and the second-time news organizations were able to use the phrase “worst mass shooting on American soil” in just over a year. Frankly, between the roles of journalist and citizen, I do not know how to handle the massacre in Las Vegas.

Keeping opinion out of my journalistic writing has always required a lot of effort, but it felt like a duty I was bound to uphold for the sake of my news reporting and most of my magazine writing – even though the latter allows for some flexibility here and there. I’m a political science student, and that tends to invite the urge to argue, to craft narrative around evidence that turns into a claim or point. But mainstream journalism has long been expected to retain a shred of impartiality so that it can view the world it studies objectively. Subscribing to a single argument or belief system can belittle an organization to claims of bias in the eyes of the public, damaging its ability to reach citizens on both sides of the aisle and establish a basis for civil discourse.

However, since the 2016 election and in the midst of the Trump presidency, plenty of political norms have been beaten to a pulp. Perhaps the most jarring has been the newfound scrutiny on the idea of “objectivity” in journalism – specifically on its relevance. For example, when Trump officially renounced his former conviction that Barack Obama was not a U.S. citizen, the New York Times ran a front page “analysis” breaking down the then-candidate’s long history of hypocrisy and contradiction. We in the journalism world know that analysis is often code for opinion, and the Times’s choice to give theirs such a priority didn’t go unnoticed by media commentators.

But for many, Trump represented a uniquely existential threat to democracy, to the press, and to people of color, and that threat was worth calling out. Trump – the man and administration – has somehow become transcendent of normal politics. How far does that change reach? Has the way we talk about politics changed forever? The discussion around gun violence has been the definition of American politics as usual for decades now, and the media has often done its due diligence to get both sides of that debate recognized. Does a new, blood-stained high score challenge that norm? Should it?

In 2016, following the massacre in Orlando, the Boston Globe decided that it had reached the threshold of its moral outrage. It combined its newsroom with its opinion office and, despite misgivings from both teams, together they churned out an entire print issue dedicated to gun violence analysis and statistics a few days after the tragedy. It sent 8,000 tweets and 10,000 emails out to its readers, asking them to petition their representatives for meaningful change, amounting to what feels like a cardinal sin in the religion of journalistic objectivity.

As a journalist, I’ve written as objectively as I can about gun violence on the local and national level in the past. As a human being, the senselessness and brutality of it shakes me to my core every time. It is my conviction that gun violence is a public health concern of the highest order, but I don’t know if I can argue on behalf of solutions – even admit those beliefs — to my readers and hope to retain their trust. At the same time, as someone who believes that journalism is a career rooted first and foremost in public service, I also don’t know if I can look at myself in the mirror while relying on what has become a false equivalency – liberty for lives – pretending that I believe the gun violence is an inevitability in this country, or that the forces that have entrenched it are immovable. They are not.  ####

NBC’s Harry Smith stresses human element of reporting

By Brenden Moore

Since breaking into the news business more than 40 years ago, NBC News correspondent Harry Smith has interviewed multiple presidents, covered the toppling of governments, reported from war zones and everything in between.

But it is a 1987 story about 18 Mexican migrants found dead in a boxcar near the Texas-Mexican border that stays with him to this day.

Smith, then a young CBS reporter, went to Mexico and talked with the family members of the deceased, putting a human face to lives that otherwise would have been forgotten.

“We went to the area in Mexico where these people came from and we met their brothers and sisters, their moms and wives,” Smith said. “The moms talked about the money their sons sent back. The wives said we no longer have a dirt floor, we have wood on the floor here. And we have a refrigerator. They’re actual human beings who will do the work no other Americans will do.”

Smith spent 25 years at CBS before jumping over to NBC in 2011. Though the boxcar story was very early in his tenure at the former, Smith said it still resonates with him today and perhaps shows an important aspect that can easily be lost in the daily grind of journalism: the human element.

Indeed, Smith has made a career of listening to regular people and telling the stories of their lives, something he believes is more essential than ever following an election where many journalists misjudged the mood of the country and downplayed President Donald Trump’s chances of winning.

“One of the things that happened in this election cycle was that we as media were not doing a very good job of listening to the country,” Smith said. “We were paying a lot of attention to the candidates. We were not paying attention to the actual human beings.”

Smith was among the few mainstream media members who believed Trump had a legitimate chance. Why? “Because I get out of the office,” he said. “It’s just the truth.”

“The difference is really made when you get on a plane or drive your car, go someplace and look at somebody face-to-face and hear what they have to say,” Smith said.

Though Smith mostly does feature stories nowadays, he still tries to read newspapers for at least two hours every morning to keep up with what’s going on.

“I still want to be ready. I want to be prepared. I think of the things that I’ve learned through this whole process is preparation is really key,” Smith said. “When you go out that door to do that story, you’d better be armed with as much homework as humanly possible before you get there, so you know which questions to ask, where the pitfalls are, what’s at stake. To me, that’s what it’s really about.”

Smith said that no matter if one is covering Donald Trump (Smith believes the media still hasn’t figured out how to cover the president) or the local zoning board meeting, journalists must take the assignment seriously as “people are invested.”

“The jobs you’ll often get to start will not be great, or they’ll feel like they’re not great. And … if you go to work for a small television station or a local newspaper, you get sent to the zoning board meeting. And if you think that’s a death sentence, then you should quit.”

And, of course, Smith said not to forget the human element.

“It goes back to the beginning of the conversation, if we go there with open eyes and open ears and an open mind, we might be amazed with the story we come back with,” Smith said.

By Danielle Church

A few weeks ago, I had a conversation with a friend I was not expecting to have. He asked me, “What are your views on the media manipulating stories?” Not entirely sure of what he meant by that, I asked him to explain himself, to which he replied “Is there biased reporting or is it just the way people construe the story?”

Then a week later, a person I had just met said to me “You want to be a journalist? Ok, let me test you. What makes a good reporter: someone who is unbiased or someone who tells the truth?”

I told him good reporters would only answer one way to that question: they do both.

It’s not unusual for anyone who is studying journalism or even a professional to be in those types of situations. People will constantly look at you and question whether the journalism industry is really trustworthy. I can’t even count on one hand the amount of times someone has seen me with a video camera and microphone on the street and asked me what I was doing only to have them tell me “Good for you. We need more people like you out there,” when I wouldn’t tell them my opinion on an issue.

I once stood in front of Trump Tower in Chicago and had a guy come up to my T.V. news partner and me. He was asking us what we were doing and then wouldn’t stop asking us whom we were going to be voting for in the presidential election. He was one of the people who said the world needed more reporters such as my partner and I.

That man and most people act as if every journalist was corrupt in some way. But the truth is, there are very good reporters out there who are unbiased. Sure, my generation of student journalists will be the next ones to take over but there are still plenty of reporters doing great journalism right now.

It can be especially hard to do at times because journalists are, after all, human too. But it’s something we commit to as soon as we say, “I’m going to be a reporter.” We must put aside our stances on certain issues and focus on objectivity.

That’s right, objectivity is not dead.

Reporters are not advocates; they are simply putting all the information out there for people to make their own decisions.

In an era where fact-checking, “fake news” and “alternative facts” are going to change the way the journalism industry approaches things, being objective will be key so reporters can maintain their credibility and give the public accurate information.

Lewis Wallace is an example of a reporter who was fired from his job at American Public Media’s “Marketplace” because he wrote a blog about how objectivity is dead on his personal website.

Wallace, a transgender reporter, felt very strongly about speaking up for certain minority groups, especially with a Trump administration in office. There wouldn’t be anything wrong with that – if he wasn’t a journalist. Wallace failed to stick to one of the utmost titles a reporter must have – remain neutral.

The best way someone ever explained to me why reporters need to stay neutral was by my professor and Chicago Sun-Times, NBC5 and Chicago Tonight reporter Carol Marin. She once told my Advanced Reporting class about how an AIDS group wanted her support, but she declined because she felt as though people who were against the group would not feel as though they could speak to her about their own concerns. At first, it might sound a little crazy that you can’t support groups such as the American Heart Society, American Cancer Society, etc.

When you become a part of those groups though, you are taking a side and that can be detrimental to your stories because readers may interpret it the wrong way. They may think you are covering the American Cancer Society because you support them.

The best way that my professors put it is when you decide to be a journalist, you agree to some of your rights being taken away. You cannot vocalize your opinion on issues whether it is on social media, in person or even the newsroom. That doesn’t mean you can’t have an opinion, but keep it to yourself. It’s like walking on egg shells when you state your opinion aloud because as soon as people know the way you feel about an issue, they are automatically going to assume you are reporting a certain way because of your previous post, conversation, etc.

As a journalist, you must be the person on the sidelines watching everything unfold and reporting it fair and truthfully. That is one of the cardinal rules of journalism after all.

Now, it’s not to say that it’s the easiest thing in the world to do. This year has really opened my eyes on why I need to keep my opinions to myself, which can especially be hard to do around friends and family. After conversations in my Advanced Reporting class though, I completely understand why objectivity is not dead and it’s a necessity in the journalism industry.

At the end of the day, no reporter is trying to “manipulate” his or her audience as my friend might have thought. Sometimes it’s just harder for some people to separate their bias from their reporting – which I don’t condone, but think about the last time someone asked you to give up a stance on every issue you’ve taken a side on. But the truth is journalists must remain neutral. It’s also up to readers or viewers though to always be skeptical, stay informed and make their own decisions at the end of the day.

By Jessica Villagomez

Center for Journalism Integrity and Excellence

Newsrooms across the country are looking for ways to capture a variety of perspectives from multiple demographics of people. In seeking these different perspectives, the traditional newsroom model finds itself dealing with a fatal flaw— many of the people, communities and experiences they desire to capture in writing are often not represented in newsrooms themselves.

Of the 42 reporters in the New York Times’ Metro department, only three are Latino, according to the New York Times. New York City has the second largest Hispanic population in the country, yet the demographics of the department that prides itself on capturing New York City’s news doesn’t reflect the city, not even by 10 percent.

This leaves the few reporters of color to become representatives of the minority populations they write about. The burden of representation, the concept that people of color feel a pressure to accurately, objectively and holistically represent a marginalized group is real because of the small amount of reporters of color in newsrooms.

During the summer going into my senior year of college, I interned at HOY Chicago, a Spanish-language daily newspaper under the Chicago Tribune Company. HOY Chicago is unlike any local paper within Illinois and throughout Chicago. As a bilingual publication, reporters, writers and editors at Hoy are committed to report on issues affecting the Latino community in both Spanish and English. Accessibility to news is one of Hoy’s largest priorities, focusing on assuring that Chicago and World news is broken to all populations of Latino households including but not limited to immigrants, Spanish-speakers, or “billenial”, bilingual millennials. Hoy is the largest circulating Spanish-language daily newspaper in Chicago, the website states.

Within my first day I immediately noticed the hard work put in by the reporters working there. Long hours and juggling multiple articles at one given time is commonplace in any newsroom, but there is built in additional stress knowing how important the work you are doing is for a demographic of people. Given that Chicago also has one of the largest Latino populations in the country, I hoped resources would include hiring more reporters to alleviate pressure on current editors and recruiting more writers would be a priority. However less than 10 editors and writers produced the paper and were therefore in charge of producing the news for their audience, every day.

Lessening the burden comes by prioritizing and valuing work produced by reporters of color. In order to get well-rounded newsrooms that are reflective of the communities they report on, a greater push through increased diversity hiring must first occur.