After objectivity: what moral norms should govern news reporting?
Introduction
As many of you are aware, I’m sure, the title of my remarks today is a conscious echo of “After Virtue,†the remarkable book by philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre published exactly a quarter century ago this year. I have chosen to evoke MacIntyre for two reasons. First, because identifying with the work of an infinitely wiser man is an easy way to imply intellectual gravitas for one’s own. Second, because the state of moral discourse described by MacIntyre—a world in which there are no shared first principles, only shards of concepts left over from historically quite different contexts of moral reasoning—is an apt description of journalistic discourse. Indeed, the current vogue in American journalism for shouting matches between talk-show pundits is premised on the assumption that participants will proceed from vastly different moral and political first principles. The public, it is assumed, loves the din created when ignorant armies clash by night.
As it happens, I had the privilege of interviewing MacIntyre at considerable length on one occasion, and I wish I had remembered then to tell him a story I will tell you now. (Story)
Most of what I will be talking about today concerns a single adjective, “partial-birth,†as in the phrase, “partial-birth abortion.†My interest in this adjective was piqued some years ago when I noticed that it never appeared in the headline whenever The New York Times published a story about this particular medical procedure, prompting me to investigate the reasons for this programmatic exclusion.
But first, by way of further justifying my title, permit me a few words of a more general kind.
“After Objectivity,†refers most directly to the widespread feeling in the United States that American journalism once strove for objectivity in reporting the news but no longer does so. That is not exactly my experience. Long before academics discovered “post modernism†journalists understood how limited each of us is, and how difficult it can be to find out, on deadline, wherein the truth lies. We scramble for the right perspective. I have seen bias in news reports and I have worked with biased editors on occasion. But the bias was in almost every case a function of ignorance—sometimes willful, usually not. As Tom Brokaw said recently when he signed off after decades as the anchor of NBC’s Nightly News, “The one thing that made me proud is when we got it right.â€
In any case, I rarely hear working journalists talk about objectivity as such. A good editor, when going over copy, will ask the reporter specific questions like, “Where did you get this?†Who are your sources?†“Where is the evidence for this assertion?†In other words, they ask the kinds of questions that every professional journalist should always ask himself: “What do I know and how do I know it?†This personal interrogation, it seems to me is fundamental to your conference theme: “Professional Integrity.â€
This afternoon, I want to explore this theme by focusing on single issue, “partial-birth†abortion, as it has been covered by a single newspaper, The New York Times. My interest is in the ethics of journalistic practices, not in the morality of abortion. The issue is timely for two reasons. This fall, the United States Supreme Court, will take up a case involving “partial birth†abortion, and the Court’s decision either way will surely figure in the next Presidential election. I have chosen the Times primarily because it is our best and most influential newspaper—the one that foreign journalists always read and broadcast media most often cite. It is also our “newspaper of record,†and its usages and linguistic formulations are the ones most likely to be copied by other media outlets.
My remarks are drawn from a study I did for the University of Notre Dame’s Journal of Law, Ethics and Public Policy, and are based on a computer analysis of all articles on “partial birth†abortion published by the Times since the issue surfaced in 1995. My hope is that this admittedly detailed case study will illuminate the role played in journalism by what we journalists refer to as “the newsroom culture.â€
Overview: The Problem of Labels
Journalists make ethical decisions all the time. Most of these decisions are also and at the same time questions of craft: that is, they are intimately involved with the choice of words and phrases used in the stories written by reporters and in the editing done by editors. Even the writing of headlines, as I hope to show, can reflect value judgments. The craft of journalism demands that language be clear and accurate. Journalistic ethics demands that language be fair. In practice, these twin demands are not always respected or easily joined.
Because of its moral seriousness, its power to evoke strong emotions, its social consequences and its political ramifications, the issue of abortion, has severely tested news organizations in their efforts to be clear, accurate and fair. One obvious problem is the question of labels. One party in the public debate over abortion calls itself “pro-choice,†thereby making a “woman’s right to choose,†as it is usually put, the paramount issue. The other side calls itself “pro-life,†because it believes the central issue is the fetus’ “right to life.†Like trial lawyers and public relations experts, advocates on both sides of the abortion divide recognize that those who frame the issue control the debate. “The language is everything,†Douglas Gould, former vice president for communications at Planned Parenthood of America told the Los Angles Times, in 1990.
… continues
Extract from a paper presented by Kenneth L. Woodward (Newsweek magazine, New York) at the 11th Cleraun Media Conference (Oct 2006). See the presentation in full from the Cleraun website here.
