I had the good fortune to attend the Ethics of Blogging workshop at the Online News Association Conference in Toronto a few weeks back. The session was chaired by Anthony Moor, Deputy Managing Editor/Interactive for the Dallas Morning News who I interviewed last week for his views on Transparency in Journalism. You can hear our interview here.
Anthony had a number of great things to say about seeking truth in journalism and the laudable/difficult job people have in trying to convey accuracy when reporting stories in any media (print, TV, radio, online). He mentioned Janet Malcom's article from the New Yorker about all journalists being con men (read a review of the article in NYTimes.com here) in the context that anytime you interview a subject there's a chance they won't react positively to what you write. That being the case, it's still the job of the journalist to do their utmost to portray the truth of a story over and above the feelings of an interviewee. For guidelines on how to operate as a journalist, however, he did recommend I check out the Code of Ethics from the Society of Professional Journalism. It's a good code and recommended as a general rule for anyone who writes/reports in any fashion.
As an interesting counterpoint to Anthony's interview, I interviewed Andrew Baron today. Andrew is the founder of Rocketboom, a highly popular and long running (since 2004) videoblog portraying news largely in the tech world but also in other arenas as well. In regards to being objective in his reporting, Andrew said that Rocketboom actually advocates being subjective in its reporting and stating as such. "You can't say you're objective...it's futile. There is no such thing as objectivity." Andrew pointed out the his audience has stated repeatedly over the years that this transparent declaration is refreshing as they can watch the show knowing Andrew's/Rocketboom's slant on material versus wondering what any underlying motives might be involved. Plus (and this is helpful to know), most controversies in terms of transparency/information not being disclosed goes away when the creators of a show have stated that the views of the show are their own. You can hear our interview here.
I do have to say that both Anthony and Andrew are overtly passionate and meticulous in their work. They also both hold journalistic integrity high in importance in terms of accuracy, etc. (Andrew/Rocketboom do thorough research/due diligence in that regard, all references to subjectivity aside). So the question remains (and I can't answer it), what is "truth?" How can someone report something that is utterly, objectively accurate without in some way revealing an inner opinion that could taint/affect a viewer/reader? If true objectivity is impossible, how can one still work to achieve a standard that provides an accurate portrayal of humanity that can be shared with the rest of humanity?
You tell me.
