“I can’t be neutral or centrist in a debate over my own humanity”: A Study of Disagreements Between Journalists and Editors, and What They Tell Us About Objectivity

Abstract

ABSTRACT Journalistic objectivity has long been in flux. This paper examines cases in which we see journalists aiming to subvert norms, and managers pushing back, reprimanding the journalists and removing them from coverage or firing them. Understanding what’s happening at these edges of acceptable journalistic practice can offer clarity about the nature of change in the field. We find journalists arguing that objectivity works differently when reporting on minority groups—so much so that they suggest focusing instead on context and truth in these cases, while managers counter that objectivity is universal. We note that scholars offer alternatives—Ward’s “pragmatic objectivity,” which recommends taking the perspective of the community, and Durham’s “strong objectivity”, which suggests embodying the most marginalized groups in a discussion. This examination offers insight into how journalism is evolving, in particular in a moment of racial reckoning.