I recently had an interesting discussion with one of my friends in Munich. We were standing outside of a pub, catching up on life in general, when suddenly — “do you think that journalists should strive to take a neutral stance?” — our conversation shifted.
My immediate response was, absolutely. After all, neutrality is one of the key constituents of reliable journalism; to accurately inform the public, journalists must take an objective stance. I proceeded to share this answer with my friend, who, nodding thoughtfully, fired another question in my direction.
“So, if Trump were to — hypothetically — make a decision that positively contributed to America’s economy, would you report on it?” He waited a beat, before adding, “Objectively?”
I furrowed my brows. “But he hasn’t. He’s singlehandedly devastating the economy.”
My friend shook his head. “Not my question.”
Suddenly, I was stumped. The aspiring journalist in me wanted to say yes. If I was working as a reporter, and Trump actually did something good, I would share this news with my audience. And I would do so objectively.
Another part of me wanted to say no. I would probably start by trying to gauge his intentions; what this allegedly good deed was gaining him. I’d probably still report on it, albeit with an air of scepticism. So definitely not objectively.
I spent the following days mulling over my friend’s question. And the more I thought about it, the more uncertain I felt.
I, for instance, have spent the past year working as a columnist. Hence, my articles are and should always be inherently subjective. I’ve been sharing my personal experiences, disclosing my opinion on various matters, and straying quite far from any semblance of objectivity.
Reporters, on the other hand, likely take a very different approach. When I watch the news, I expect this news to be delivered reliably, and fully. Still, even as I consider the importance of objectivity, I’ve come to realise that it’s not the same as neutrality.
The fact is news doesn’t, and shouldn’t, exist within a vacuum. To me, good journalism isn’t about pacifying each existing viewpoint, but informing the general public as fully and accurately as possible. Giving equal weight to two opposing sides isn’t fair if one side is fundamentally flawed. I suppose deciding where that flaw lies, is another issue entirely.
Robin van Wasen, student at UCM