Researched and written by Aarathi Ganesan

“It was hard to paint the world and men and, at the same time, to live with them.”

─Albert Camus, The Artist at Work

A precarious news environment has led to cries for the return of “objective” news at the forefront of public discourse. Increasingly perceptive social media platforms feed the public what they want. Intellectuals can seemingly no longer bear the rise of a new class of socially conscious (?) individuals, whose singular clicks fuel industries, careers, and political economies. The champions of objectivity and truth seem to be utterly shocked by this age of darkness, but hasn’t the demise of objectivity been triggered by nothing but this long held obsession with objectivity itself?

Objectivity and the news media have always had a somewhat contentious relationship, what with newspapers and pamphlets being traditionally used in the West to spread openly divisive propaganda

Such a relationship was hardly surprising as these papers functioned at the mercy of politically motivated beneficiaries[I]. Even when newspapers strayed away from political connections during the 19th century, their blatant sensationalism never waned; and so stories about sex, funny animals, foreigners, and inter-/intra-state political dramas sold like hotcakes[ii].

To blame just the media for this would be unfair. Academics can comfortably reside behind a paywall of objectivity and scientificity, but news organisations are left to fend for themselves in a viciously capricious industry environment. They must cater to their readers, a requirement that cannot coexist with the idea of “one objective truth”. “The public”, after all, is an entity that stretches across a range of socio-cultural factors, motivations, desires, and worldviews.

Between the political influencers and this diverse public lies the very complex midway point occupied by the media. It upholds the key tenets of any democratic state, serving its imagined public, whose consent or rejection of its leaders depends on the information the media gives them. The largely conservative democratic spirit and nation-statism of the 18th, 19th, and the early 20th centuries, therefore, was generously upheld thanks to the sobriety and passivity of an easily influenced news media[iii][iv].

Media inches closer to an imagined public

But soon after the World Wars, grassroots politics, decolonization, and revolutionary politics stormed the world. Traditionally powerful socio-cultural influencers started to fall from power. Identity formation and information gathering were now left in the hands of an increasingly assertive public, in conjunction with a media now left alone to wield its power.

Objectivity became the norm of the new reasoned news house. It decried fundamentalism, and detachment implied fairness, the only measures that could effectively combat hegemonic public influence[v]. The political class was now a slave solely to the reasoning of the media; the public waited at the latter’s gates to form views.

And so, thanks to the ample political misdemeanours of the 20th century, the news media became inundated with objective, critical, and often, just angry pieces. The state, the majority, the colonisers, and their assorted pals became victims of extensive political, economic, and social journalism.

It’s true that such journalism has done great service to citizens and has toppled illegitimate regimes. But the tone, especially after Watergate, became increasingly intrusive too. Journalists now felt the need to include tasteful snippets on celebrities’ marital stability, vacation spots, preferred fashion houses, and favourite medical treatments[vi][vii]. How relevant these details are is debatable, but they do point towards an overarching power of the media to project certain highly personal preferences as “right” or “wrong”, and to encourage general scepticism over allowing the benefit of the doubt.

If the media is to be trusted as the only fair player in a somewhat flawed political system, then turning to cheap cuts of personal lives provides it with wonton influence, yet again masking its inherent socio-cultural biases behind “objectivity”.

Objectivity needs subjectivity

The passive, unquestioning reception of such news by the public is worrying. Mankind’s multiple opinions cannot, and should not, be determined by a few wannabe-objective individuals who otherwise, by human nature, are wired to be subjective. The future of the news media and the extent of its powerful role in shaping public opinion is not particularly promising either.

The level of ideological investment in the news media in the digital era is astonishing. The increasing reliance upon social media platforms to deliver news via algorithmic preference (if anything, they are the media publishers of this era), has resulted in increasingly individualistic and subjective news consumption. News organisations can now openly commit themselves to their beliefs on political events, delivering their bulletins to sections of the public that they cater to. Of course, within their own universes, these beliefs are “valid” or “factually correct”, and are often challenged (with some malice) outside of their cosy realms. And yet, if objectivity and reasoned interpretation have been confused with junket trivia, bias, and political pot-shots as mentioned earlier, then is all of this subjective, fake news even “fake”? Is it failing to be objective, considering the trajectory traced out by the news media?

And so we see that the news environment has never really been objective: at best, it has masqueraded under the guise of objectivity while silently fulfilling its own multiple (and often understandable) objectives.

The end result of this has been “a public of publics” hungry for recognition beyond their homogenization, a reliance upon a capricious market, and an increasingly darkening spectre of industry Godfathers

The world has become better-connected thanks to the Internet, social media, and economic sophistication. Peoples of different states are now more aware of other circumstances, which can be paralleled against their own (much to the chagrin of political actors)[viii]. However, these comparisons will never actually galvanise societal progress within any territory, if its media houses continue to play judge, jury, and executioner.

Amongst other things, what is required is a more responsible style of journalism, one that does not foolishly commit itself to Utopian ideals, but acknowledges subjectivities of opinion. The post-modern world has opened up a wealth of epistemologies and worldviews – it would be prudent at the least to take these into account and acknowledge their varying weights[ix]. Objectivity for objectivity’s sake has warped the definition of responsibility; instead, subjectivity for objectivity’s sake will prove to be a better operational ethos.

References:

[i] Cook, T. (1998). Governing With the News (p. 19). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

[ii] Cook, T. (1998). Governing With the News (p. 38). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

[iii] Schudson, M. (2003). The Sociology Of News (p. 71). New York: Macmillan.

[iv] Darnton, R. (1975). Writing News and Telling Stories. Daedalus, 104 (2), 175 – 194.

[v] Schudson, M. (2003). The Sociology Of News (p. 86-89, 90-94). New York: Macmillan.

[vi] Boczkowski, P. J. (2010). News at Work: Imitation in an Age of Information Abundance (p. 37). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

[vii] Schudson, M. (2003). The Sociology Of News (p. 90-102). New York: Macmillan.

[viii] Hannay, A. (2005) On The Public (p. 78). New York: Routledge

[ix] Aldama, F. L. (2008). Why The Humanities Matter. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Featured image by rawpixel.com on Unsplash

Aarathi Ganesan
Aarathi Ganesan Author, The Bastion Staff

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.