What is the true definition of objectivity? And, how does objectivity provide a framework for you to function ethically as a journalist?

I'm an avid supporter of Wikipedia, despite the fact that many teachers don't consider it a reliable site for information.  So, before beginning this blog post, I decided to check the definition of objectivity in journalism on Wikipedia.  My Elements of Journalism book was all the way across the room and getting it to make sure I had the definition right would have required getting off the bed and finding it, so I thought Wikipedia was a safe bet.  According to this wonderful website, "in the context of journalism, objectivity may be understood as synonymous with neutrality."  Now, despite my (sometimes) blind trust in this paragon of knowledge, I recognized this for the flawed definition it was.  Fortunately for me, I had read my Elements of Journalism book thoroughly and knew that objectivity is not neutrality, and shouldn't have to be.

In the fifth chapter of Elements of Journalism, it talks about a man named William Safire who wrote, not neutrally, but objectively.  He was "someone independent, true to a set of ideas rather than a member of a team, someone who put his readers first."  (I didn't have this memorized, I actually got up to get the book).  I feel this is a much more sophisticated definition of objectivity.  In journalism, it's ok to have an opinion.  In fact, I'd rather read something by someone who does have an opinion.  The important thing is to never allow those opinions to cloud your judgement or interfere with your desire to tell your readers the true facts.

When I become a journalist, I hope to use this definition of objectivity in my work so that my readers or watchers can trust me to tell them the truth.  In journalism, I find that it's very important to have ideas or a set of ideals as William Safire did. However, i also believe that, just like him, it's important to remember that this world is full of people who think differently and that representing differing ideas is one of the most important aspects of a journalist's work.

What are your motivations in becoming a journalist?

As a child, I loved to read anything and everything I could get my hands on.  My mom taught me to read when I was about four years old and I can still remember the very first book I read all on my own. It was a Dr. Seuss book that was probably only about 10 pages, but that memory and the feeling I had is still very lucid.  As I've grown older, my love for reading has never vanished, although the pressures of life do make it much more difficult to find the time to read.  Now, much of what I read is the news or  other various articles online, but that early love of reading taught me how to be inspired by what I encountered.

One day, a couple years ago, I was reading Reader's Digest and came upon an article about a huge Hollywood producer who gave that life style up to go build homes and schools for underprivileged children in Cambodia.  For some reason, inexplicable to myself even now, it gave me the inescapable desire to, not only accomplish something like this, but to find others like this man who were doing incredibly inspiring things, and write about them.  Since that day, I've cut out or printed dozens and dozens of articles or pictures of anything that inspires me or explains something really well.  As I look through this amalgam every once in awhile, I'm filled with a desire to tell these stories, and maybe even invent a few of my own.

Scott Neeson and the children in Cambodia 

In our book, The Elements of Journalism, they once described journalism as "storytelling with a point." I've always admired people who were pragmatic and straightforward, but I also always valued imagination.  To me, journalism can be a perfect blend of these two things.  I know I will face many obstacles before I might write about what I wish, but I also know, any struggle will be worth it.

Please find a news story that blew the facts out of proportion. Please tell 1. Why you think it was blown out of proportion, and 2. How the facts should have been stated instead so that the story would be interesting, but not sensationalized.

A story I recently discovered on Fox News that I believe completely blew the facts out of proportion was the appearance of a psychiatrist by the name of Keith Ablow who was called in by the Fox News team to evaluate Joe Biden's performance in the 2012 Vice Presidential debate.  First of all, the fact that they even called in a psychiatrist was inappropriate, already insinuating by this move that there was something mentally wrong with Biden's performance.  However, it got even worse when Ablow diagnosed Biden with dementia purely based on the fact that he interrupted Paul Ryan multiple times.  When one of the other commentators on the show ventured to contradict him, he started proffering even more ridiculous scenarios as to why Biden was acting the way he was, going so far as to hypothesize that Biden had been drinking before the debate.

Both claims were ridiculous and unfounded considering Biden could remember tons of intricate facts (something that someone with dementia or drunk could never do).  Biden's mother and sister were both killed in a drunk driving accident as well, causing him to very rarely drink.  The other way this story blew the facts out of proportion was by having someone with a medical license state conjectures as if they were facts, his license giving him a false authority for this.  A better way to analyze the Vice Presidential debate would have been to summarize what was said during the debate for the audience and then fact check all the claims that were made.  Instead, they chose to offer their own unfounded opinion.

How can journalists make the significant interesting, without making it sensational?

Increasingly nowadays, desperate journalists, in an attempt to make the stories they write more interesting, turn from responsible journalism and write in such a way that exaggerates and sensationalizes what happens in the news.  Hyperbole and myth are just two of several tools these type of journalists use to get people to pay attention to what they write, even if what they're writing is an assembly of twisted or fabricated facts.  Some claim that publishing pieces like these are the only way to turn a profit, but there are other ways to make the significant interesting without altering the facts.

Sensationalized Journalism 

One of the most important ways to do this is to create characters in the piece that aren't just caricatures of a person, but are built using dialogue and description that cause them to come alive to the reader in a natural and realistic way.  The reason that so many enjoy reading fiction isn't simply because the plot is something they wouldn't encounter outside of their own experiences, but because they can relate to the characters in the story and they become emotionally invested in their well-being.  Therefore, the first step in constructing a story that draws the reader in without exaggeration, is doing enough research and presenting the true characters of the story in such a way that readers will relate to them and find themselves personally invested with the character's life.

Another important tool for writing an interesting piece about something that many may often overlook, is to use a unique or creative way to organize the story.  Many journalists are trained to write in specific formats, the most common being the inverted pyramid.  However, a journalist working to craft a story that will intrigue readers will construct his story in a way that will make the most sense and emphasize certain points in the most effective way, even if it doesn't conform to the common format.  Mozart's music was revolutionary, not because he followed all the accepted rules of music during that time, but because he learned how to use those rules, and then broke them.  It is important for journalists to learn to write using the accepted rules, but some stories require a more creative approach in order to get the reader to listen.

There are so many stories to be told in this world, and so much information that people really should hear, but sometimes it's difficult to convince those people that it should be important to them.  Journalists must remember that they have the responsibility to give the truth in a way that doesn't cause people to believe something different from reality.  However, if a journalist can stay true to the story and the facts, and yet still construct a story that invites a reader's imagination, they have no need to sensationalize anything, but instead can inform and move.