Objectively wrong: Some areas of news industry debate aren’t gray

I usually don’t write about journalism, but there are two current controversies with wide-ranging implications. There is a clamor, from powerful figures on the right, to make it easier to collect damages from news organizations for defamation. There is a separate debate over whether “objectivity” is the desirable standard for mainstream news reporting.

To help, I reached out to three of the very best and most experienced journalists I worked with: Jill Abramson, the former executive editor of the New York Times, earlier a Wall Street Journal reporter and editor; Norman Pearlstine, once managing editor of the Wall Street Journal, then editor-in-chief of Time Inc. and editor of the Los Angeles Times, and Michael Gartner, who was editor and publisher of the Des Moines Register, president of NBC News and owner/publisher of the Ames Daily Tribune.

The objectivity issue was sparked by former Washington Post executive editor Len Downie, who wrote a column and co-authored a report for the Cronkite School at Arizona State entitled “Beyond Objectivity.” He argues that the standard, the product of largely white male educated elites, often doesn’t give sufficient coverage on issues like race and gender, among others. While Downie opposes reporters expressing personal opinions, he writes that both side-isms — on the one hand and then on the other — can skew reality.

That sent the right into a fury.

The American Conservative charged this would throw the journalism door open to “younger barbarians who would destroy it.” New York Times conservative columnist Bret Stephens chimed in that reporters should “collect and present relevant facts” and leave the Truth seeking — with a capital “T” — to opinion writers (like Stephens, presumably).

I’m much closer to the Downie view: objectivity is a misnomer, as much of what journalists do is subjective; fairness is the appropriate standard. And, with nuances, so are my panel of wise people.

Pearlstine thinks the meaning of “objectivity” has been distorted; Abramson says it’s a “waste of time” to debate its application. “Objectivity is in the mind of the beholder,” notes Gartner; “Truth and facts should not be.”

This is about mainstream news reporting, whether on the national or community level. The approach, Abramson says, should be simple: “Go into every story with a willingness to be surprised by what you find. Report deeply — and then report more. Hear from different sides, and you will see where the weight of evidence leans.” Then write with authority and be transparent about your sources.

Gartner says truth “sometimes has a dozen sides —debates on abortion, religion, capital punishment — and sometimes just one.” When that’s the case, he suggests using that old Wall Street Journal formula: “To be sure, this sleazy politician is good to his mother …”

Stephens contends that both side-isms is a “critical way to build trust” by presenting “multiple views.”

But you don’t build trust by presenting a false equivalence on issues ranging from climate change versus climate deniers, the Russian invasion of Ukraine, claims the last presidential election was fraudulent, or academic freedom at Hamline University, which fired a professor just for showing a 14th century painting of the prophet Muhammad — with prior warning to students).

There is a big difference, Pearlstine notes, between “having an opinion and trying to justify it” and “good reporting that ends up making a point.”

There are, to be sure, challenges.

Social media creates complications. Gartner worries about reporters writing their stories and a couple hours later going on cable television to give their opinion on those stories. How, he asks, can you be both a reporter and a commentator?

It’s a no brainer that newsrooms are much better with more diversity — race, gender, geography, educational and social background. That many newsrooms remain dominated by white males today, Abramson says, “is reprehensible and fully within the power of these organizations to change.” (Diversity can cross a line if turns into strident woke-ism.)

The separate argument over libel has become ideological.

The benchmark is the 1964 Supreme Court decision, New York Times vs Sullivan, where a unanimous decision ruled the First Amendment precludes a public official from a defamation charge unless it can be proven assertions were made with “actual malice” or with a “reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”

It wasn’t a story but an ad in the Times during the civil rights protests that contained some minor errors. Justice William Brennan wrote that the First Amendment encourages a “wide open and robust debate,” and as some “erroneous statements are inevitable,” the press must be given “breathing room.”

Two current conservative justices — Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch — have called for revisiting Sullivan, as have right-wing politicians, including Florida’s Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis and Donald Trump. (By the way, actual “fake news” — as Robert Sack, a federal court of appeals senior judge and foremost expert on libel law, explains — is, by definition, defamatory under current law.)

Reversing Sullivan would be disastrous.

On a national level, some of the favorite venues of the right might be the most affected.

And it would really hit the little guys. “Small papers would go out of business; small TV stations would focus even more on weather and car wrecks,” ventures Gartner. “Stories would not be written or told because editors and news directors wouldn’t be able to take the financial risks, bearing the high costs of lawsuits.”

The big winners would be shady politicians.

Al Hunt is the former executive editor of Bloomberg News. He previously served as reporter, bureau chief and Washington editor for The Wall Street Journal. For almost a quarter century he wrote a column on politics for The Wall Street Journal, then The International New York Times and Bloomberg View. He hosts Politics War Room with James Carville. Follow him on Twitter @AlHuntDC.