Norms Of Objectivity Research Articles

And That’s a Fact: A Rhetorical Perspective on the Role of Fact-Checkers

ABSTRACT Fact-checking initiatives have rapidly expanded worldwide with the overall aim of assessing the veracity of factual claims made in public. In this paper, we critique how the objectivity norm informs the current role perception of fact-checkers and suggest ways to reinterpret this perception through rhetorical argumentation theory. First, we point to research literature on fact-checking as a site in which role perceptions of fact-checkers and epistemological ideals are represented, (re)created and contested, marking out an objectivist role perception. Second, we highlight recent contributions from scholars who, like us, have noticed tensions between the objectivist role perception and role performances of fact-checkers and constructively recommended different ways of working around these tensions. In dialogue with these suggestions, we propose that rhetorical argumentation theory can be considered a supplementary resource to further advance epistemological discussions on the role perception of fact-checkers. In addition, the vocabulary from rhetorical argumentation theory holds potential for methodological operationalisation to guide the future role performances of fact-checkers. Finally, to develop our suggestion further, we propose a new research agenda embracing action-oriented research as an integrated way of developing fact-checkers’ role and practise together with practitioners.

Ageism, a Remarkable Election, and the Journalism Objectivity Norm

Age, rarely examined in journalism studies, became salient in 2018 in Malaysia when a 92-year-old, Mahathir Mohamad, unexpectedly became the world’s oldest elected head of state, and he named a 25-year-old, Syed Saddiq, to his cabinet. A content analysis of 1,376 stories published worldwide revealed that journalists treated the ages of the two men infrequently, similarly, and cautiously. Variance occurred with Hofstede’s collectivism-individualism dimension of the publications’ national bases, and in the application of descriptive adjectives, which changed with the election. Overall, the judicious treatment of age shows support for the journalistic objectivity norm.

Portrayal of electronic cigarettes in the news

Portrayal of electronic cigarettes in the news

Challenging journalistic objectivity: How journalists of color call for a reckoning

This study explores how journalists in the United States advocated for a stronger affirmation of social justice in journalism following the murder of George Floyd in 2020. Analyzing the metajournalistic discourse in trade publications ( Niemanlab, Columbia Journalism Review, Poynter) and on the web, this study traces how journalists and commentators challenged the professional norm of journalistic objectivity. In particular, it examines how journalistic objectivity became identified as a problematic concept, what journalists were suggesting as its alternative, and how the journalistic establishment responded. This study identifies three dimensions of criticisms and connects these to disagreements within specific modalities of journalistic objectivity (procedural, ethical, ideological). Ultimately, this analysis locates an ideological struggle in which fundamental moral norms of journalism are not only being vigorously contested but also rearticulated and renegotiated.

Introduction

Archives are powerful. On this, at least, historians agree. But when it comes to why they are so powerful and how that power should be used, a great deal is up for debate. Some see the archive as the bedrock of empirical work; if not objective, the archive is as close as we can get to a shared source base from which to tell authoritative histories. To others, the archive’s power is wielded by those who assemble and oversee it—sometimes, against those whose names and lives appear within its boxes. Archives are fetishized and feared, at times by the same people; their boundaries can be policed with vigor or rendered porous through critique. But at the end of the day, they are powerful—and that is what keeps people coming back year after year, attempting to draw out their secrets or tear down their walls. It is almost harder to imagine history without the archive than to imagine a world without history.This is one way of framing the dilemma of the archive; another would be to acknowledge the many senses in which researchers might be “in” the archive. Some—especially those researching histories of racial violence, dispossession, and displacement—often confront themselves in the boxes they call up, an experience that brings the dilemma of the archive to a fine point. How can scholarly norms of objectivity and distance be maintained when one’s own history and identity are part of the materials out of which history is supposed to be made? And how can the lessons and methods produced in these moments transform the kinds of histories scholars are encouraged to produce?Each essay that follows presents a dilemma of its own, offering reflections on what it means to wrestle with these issues alongside the need for new methodological and narrative approaches to overcome them. They evoke and even provoke the boundaries around “history” and “evidence,” exploring what Katherine McKittrick calls the “fictive perimeters” of science and its norms—as well as the power to breach them.1 They grapple with the history of science’s incurable absences, haunting presences, and gaping wounds, making visible the affective labor necessary to document the unwritten and capture the unsaid. They remind us that history is never objective, much less an objective science, but is also (always) an instrument, a tool for getting along in the world. Whether that tool is wielded for domination and erasure or imagination and reparation is a political question—as, indeed, all matters of evidence, objectivity, and knowledge must be.We would like to thank Joanna Radin and Deborah Coen for inspiring and encouraging our collaboration in this issue.

How do South Korean podcasts reflect changes in journalistic norms and practices? Comparing podcasts of professional journalists with podcasts of non-journalists

The purpose of this study is to examine whether journalistic norms of objectivity and practices of gatekeeping are observed in news and current-affairs podcasts. By analyzing 101 episodes from three different types of news and political podcasts, which included 13,237 sentences related to the 2022 presidential election in South Korea, the findings showed that journalistic norms and practices were often blurred in podcasts. Specifically, this study measured objectivity norms in three ways: (1) expression of opinion and first-person narration; (2) types of evidence/grounds employed; and (3) transparency of evidence/grounds. The results showed that 15.8% of sentences included opinions and 3.1% included first-person narrations. Three out of 10 episodes (31.7%) included no evidence. Only half the evidence/grounds were transparent (56.4%). Also, the gatekeeping role was shared by inviting outsiders as interviewees (71.3%). Importantly, the findings showed that the observation of norms and practices differed depending on whether podcast hosts were affiliated with mainstream media.

Narrating “Their War” and “Our War”

“Patriotic journalism,” a deviation from objectivity, has become an important paradigm and well-documented phenomenon in the analysis of conflict coverage. However, studies rarely focus on the link between journalists’ perceptions and narratives. We investigated how journalists from two countries, one involved in a conflict (Ukraine) and the other observing it from a distance (Sweden) relate to the objectivity norm in sourcing and narrating seven conflictive news cases in Ukraine (2017 to 2018). We found pragmatic commitment to objectivity in both countries, which was not always reflected in the content produced. For Swedish journalists, our results hint toward a value-based ally loyalty, which seems less stable than a tribe-based bond. In Ukraine, official Ukrainian perspectives were undisputedly disseminated; however, we did not find that they were generally positively laden, as one would expect for patriotic journalists. Trust in public institutions might be a deciding factor over the extent of patriotism.

Journalism as historical repair work: addressing present injustice through the second draft of history

AbstractAs part of contemporary racial reckoning, institutions are acknowledging their historical legacies of racism and discrimination. Media institutions, given their role in the social construction of reality, have been called to account by racial justice activists for perpetuating the white-dominant status quo. We develop a framework for recognizing and interpreting efforts at historical repair work in journalism, second draft of history journalism (SDOH), whereby contemporary consciousness about racial injustice, structural inequality, and exclusionary practices inside and outside journalism prompt news organizations to revisit the historical record. Through case study exemplars at U.S. newspapers, we define the three main modes—active, reflective, and active/reflective, and four key characteristics of SDOH journalism—discursive consciousness, institutional consciousness, moral consciousness, and past orientation. We address the contested boundaries of journalism’s cultural authority as journalists negotiate between SDOH journalism’s moral advocacy in pursuit of social justice and journalists’ professional journalistic norms of objectivity and neutrality.

A Pragmatic Study of Political Cartoons in Al-Ahram Weekly Newspaper

During the past century, political cartoons were considered as the most extreme form of expression in newspapers, as they were not committed to any norm of journalistic objectivity, or even the domain of objective reality. Some cartoonists consider political cartoons as historical sources of satirical critique of the political status quo. Generally speaking, there are various forms of cartoons, such as political, social, and humorous cartoons. Each one has a different function.
 The function of political cartoons lies in making a real change in a society in favor of suppressed classes through criticizing the status quo and unjust practices in political life. In addition, cartoons help newspapers and magazines look better by taking some space among columns of words which might be boring for the reader. At the same time, political cartoons have real contributions in affirming the role newspapers play as means of communication between a reader and a cartoonist. Political cartoons are also capable of bold dealing with different societal problems as they can escape different types of censorship. Thus, political cartoons have the mechanisms to correct the negatives of a society faster than written words, especially they are easily understood by readers.
 As cartoons are viewed as methods of communication, pragmatics is also concerned with determining the elements of communicational content, which are essential to interpretation. It is quite common for an utterance to display a number of pragmatic features. Hence, it is clear that pragmatics plays a key role in the interpretation of the communication process represented by the cartoons' language. This communication process, whether verbal or non-verbal, includes expressions and recognition of intentions. From this perspective, pragmatic interpretation is simply an exercise in which a reader infers a cartoonist’s intended meaning from his cartoon.
 Within this framework, this study tries to discuss the aspects of the implicit meanings in the language of political cartoons. The importance of the study is obviously shown by shedding light on the role of the language that can be employed to convey explicit and also implicit meaning by pragmatic devices. This study, therefore, attempts to clarify the role of pragmatic devices in explaining the hidden meaning in political cartoons. In doing so, it tries to emphasize the importance of implicature in the language of political cartoons, whether it abides or flouts Gricean’s maxims with its effect to convey the meaning. Also, it attempts to figure out why cartoonists frequently use this aspect of pragmatics in writing the language. Another goal of this study is to explain the role of speech acts, whether used directly or indirectly, and why a cartoonist sometimes uses the literal and sometimes prefers to use non-literal speech acts.
 Moreover, this study underscores the importance of the distinction between language use and linguistic meaning. Besides, it asserts a parallel distinction between speaker's reference and linguistic reference, which provokes the assumption to what extent linguistic expressions refer independently to speaker's use of them. In addition, this thesis attempts to consider the politeness phenomenon as a pragmatic device, and its role in understanding the meaning. 
 Given the distance between a cartoonist and his addressees, this study sheds light on how language users sometimes depart from the conditions of optimal information exchange which may cause confusion. In addition, this thesis emphasizes the function of deictic expressions and the role of presupposition with its relation to the implicature. In short, it shows the linguistic insights of implicit meanings employed in cartoons and attempts to discover whether or not cartoonists succeed in conveying the meaning to the addressees by employing pragmatic devices.

The multifaceted norm of objectivity in intelligence practices

ABSTRACT Intelligence doctrines and textbooks on intelligence practices across a range of liberal democracies all describe objectivity as a central norm of intelligence work. However, the core meaning of objectivity is rarely fleshed out in a unified way. It seems to reflect a range of different perceptions, for example that the persons involved in the process of intelligence acquisition should be treated fairly; that intelligence professionals should minimise influence from cognitive biases; that analysts should be neutral and apolitical; or simply that subjectivity should be reduced. Since appeals to objectivity in general guide us when we are evaluating trustworthiness and legitimacy, we need to know what we mean when we talk about objectivity, as well as how we can ensure it and where we should look in order to determine to what extent intelligence practices are objective. This article maps and discusses various notions of objectivity in intelligence practices, such as interpretation-free, value-free and value-neutral. It argues that objectivity reflects at least five different norms that are irreducible to one another. By drawing on the multifaceted articulations of objectivity within the philosophy of science, a range of different meanings of objectivity is identified in the context of intelligence work. Fleshing out the complexity of intelligence objectivity reveals new subtleties that have so far not been elaborated in intelligence theory.

On the Limits of Diversity

On the Limits of Diversity Anke Bueter*, PhD (bio) In an ideal world, being diagnosed with a mental disorder would provide the affected person with a means to make sense of their experiences and pave the way to successful treatment. In the real world though, receiving a psychiatric diagnosis might not be helpful to achieve either of these goals. Even worse, it may create additional problems, since the psychopathologized (to borrow Knox's well-coined term) suffer from structural discrimination and social stigmatization. Furthermore, they have a high risk of experiencing epistemic injustice in health care contexts and beyond. Büter (2019) argues that an exclusion of lays with experiences of mental illness from the revision process of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) constitutes a preemptive testimonial injustice, as it ignores relevant perspectives and experiential knowledge. In their excellent article, Knox (2022) shows that the problem does not end there. Rather, failing to integrate the psychopathologized can also amount to hermeneutical injustice, when it excludes alternative conceptualizations of their experiences that differ radically from current psychiatric interpretations. For example, this would concern the neurodiversity paradigm, which understands phenomena such as autism in terms of (valuable) difference, not dysfunction or disorder. Not only would this hermeneutical injustice harm the psychopathologized; according to Knox, it also threatens the success of DSM revisions if viewed through the lens of Longino's (1990) model of social objectivity. Social objectivity is enhanced by the discursive presence of a diversity of perspectives, as this diversity allows for the detection and discussion of background assumptions in a transformative critical process. To allow for such a process, the relevant scientific community needs to fulfill the following conditions. There must be 1) recognized avenues for criticism, 2) shared standards for criticism, 3) uptake of criticism, and 4) tempered equality of intellectual authority (i.e., allocating authority to participants based on their qualification and the significance of their arguments, rather than based on their gender, race, or health status). I agree that we should apply a social, procedural model of objectivity to psychiatric research and DSM revisions. However, Knox's argument to include radically different perspectives into the DSM revision process to further social objectivity raises an interesting question about Longino's model: How much diversity does it require, and where are the limits of such diversity? Knox makes a convincing case for including the psychopathologized into DSM-revisions, especially if their perspective is critical of mainstream psychiatry. Such critical voices come in a wide [End Page 271] variety—from a moderate, reformist version of critical psychiatry to the neurodiversity movement, psychiatric abolitionism, and anti-psychiatry. Knox argues that the DSM should even include those "hostile" to psychiatry, that is, those who reject the very idea of mental illness, argue that psychiatry failed as a scientific discipline, or consider current psychiatric care as utterly harmful violation of human rights. On the one hand, it seems plausible that it is exactly an inclusion of radically critical voices that might be valuable in terms of identifying shared background assumptions, which would otherwise pass unscrutinized. On the other hand, this raises a worry about whether too much diversity might undermine the critical process. Would the inclusion of "hostile" critics threaten to make constructive deliberation impossible? Does social objectivity require to include just about everyone? To answer this question of where to draw the limits of diversity, it is helpful to consider Hicks's (2011) discussion of what they call Longino's "Nazi problem," This problem arises from the question of whether Longino's account requires the active cultivation of anti-feminist (or racist) perspectives in science (presuming a feminist, antiracist majority position) for the sake of diversity. Abstracting from the Nazi case (i.e., focusing on the radical opposition of critics to a certain scientific endeavor such as psychiatric classification), their arguments can be applied to the question of who should be excluded from the process of social objectivity. Hicks discusses two ways of limiting diversity, which are helpful here. To start with, the behavior of participants of the critical process needs to live up to the norms of social objectivity—in particular, to the requirements of uptake...

The paradox of knowing more and less: Audience metrics and the erosion of epistemic standards on the internet

Journalism is crucial to modern democracies in that it provides valid knowledge about current events in the form of news. Through shared epistemic standards and the professional norm of objectivity, journalism helps to generate societal knowledge and to make informed decisions. Yet, this surveillance function is also driven by knowledge about audiences. Knowledge about audiences informs both journalism’s and mutual recipients’ expectations toward anticipated audiences. It allows to gauge shared epistemic standards and thus to reduce risks of criticism when participating in public discourse. Online, changes in possibilities and necessities to monitor audiences, however, have paved the way to engage in a mode of addressing more tailored standards of anticipated audiences. Such epistemic tribalism contrasts widely shared epistemic standards of professional journalism and has yielded a paradox in which an increase in knowledge about audiences possibly leads to less common knowledge about current events because epistemic standards are no longer shared across the public. Based on this diagnose, we offer two potential pathways for the future of epistemic standards on the internet. A negative one where polarization will benefit from an intensified identification with epistemic tribes and a positive one where discursive spaces will allow for an institutionalized rebalancing of epistemic standards between journalism and audiences.

HOW INDIAN NEWSROOMS POD: STUDYING THE PRACTICES OF JOURNALISTIC PODCASTING IN INDIA

The modern digital newsrooms produce journalistic output in multiple new content formats, podcasting being one of them. This study presents different contours of podcasting as practiced in the Indian newsrooms through the study of journalistic practices associated with it. Based on fieldwork in newsrooms as well as in-depth interviews, the study tells that the news selection practices for podcasting show a different set of news values emerging. The role of the audience in podcast production as well as the headlining function was also examined. The journalists were found to employ a more interpretive, narrative style of storytelling, moving away from the old journalistic norm of objectivity. Furthermore, these journalists were found to understand podcasting as a form of ‘slow journalism and consciously employing the slow techniques in their practice, conceptualizing podcasts as a necessary break in the modern day news work that is ‘always on’.

Towards New Standards? Interaction Patterns of German Political Journalists in the Twittersphere

Research has provided few findings on the patterns of communication and interaction between political and media actors in social media and how these interactions have evolved. The present study analyzes how journalists registered in the German Federal Press Conference interact with members of the German Bundestag (member of parliament) on Twitter and what type of content they exchange with each other. Based on two time periods (2016, 2020), the communicative practices and the patterns of interactions are examined. New insights into the conversational structure are generated through a combination of content and network analysis. The results indicate a trend in the use of Twitter among the actors as a political opinion medium. While the dissemination of opinions among politicians remains stable, journalists use Twitter interactions more to express a subjective and critical view and less for news coverage over time. Furthermore, the analysis notes that journalists generally comment in negative terms on the parties, except for the Greens. To some extent, the results indicate that the usual journalistic norms of objectivity and balance do not apply for interactions in the Twittersphere. To evaluate whether this pattern also applies to other countries, more comparative investigations in the domain of media–politics interactions on Twitter are needed.

Podcasting the Pandemic: Exploring Storytelling Formats and Shifting Journalistic Norms in News Podcasts Related to the Coronavirus

ABSTRACT The coronavirus pandemic dominated headlines at the same time that mainstream news organizations began adding more podcasts to their digital storytelling platforms. This popular form of audio journalism appears to be unrestricted by traditional journalism practices and constraints of deadlines and space. Few academic studies thus far have examined the characteristics of news podcasts (i.e., shows created by professional news organizations) and where they fit within the journalism landscape. Through a content analysis of 40 news podcast episodes related to the coronavirus pandemic, this study explores the extent to which narrative storytelling devices (voice, character development, scene setting, dialogue, dramatic tension), and other elements, such as opinion, were incorporated into the sample. Results show all but one episode utilized narrative storytelling elements, but the degree of editing and production varied widely. Results also demonstrate an overall shift away from journalistic norms of objectivity and toward interpretive reporting in this emerging format. Reporters and hosts often appear as both characters and experts in the episodes, and narrative elements serve to emphasize storytelling over content.

‘It’s OK to feel’: The emotionality norm and its evolution in U.S. print journalism

Between the 1960s and the 1990s journalists in U.S. newspapers created, constructed, and advanced emotionality as a new occupational norm in American print journalism, challenging some aspects of the dominant objectivity norm while simultaneously affirming its overall relevance. This historical study delineates how the emotionality norm emerged as a constitutive element of narrative journalism during this time period. Drawing from archival research, in-depth interviews, and textual analysis of trade publications, this study analyzes how narrative journalists developed moral ideals, practices, and justifications for advancing narrative journalism as an acceptable and desirable mode of emotional storytelling. As the emotionality norm affected journalistic roles, expanded the repertoire of journalistic forms, and transformed the emotive posture of newspapers, it contributed in nuanced and deliberate ways to the interpretive turn in U.S. journalism.

Activist-journalism and the Norm of Objectivity: Role Performance in the Reporting of the #MeToo Movement in Denmark and Sweden

ABSTRACT This article presents the results of a study examining the self-perceived roles of journalists covering the #MeToo movement in Denmark and Sweden. Drawing on qualitative interviews with journalists, editors and activists (N = 20) and participant observation at various #MeToo events, we examine the professional journalism cultures underpinning differences in the coverage and the broader public debate spurred by the movement in the two countries. The analysis is informed by the theoretical framework of role performance [Mellado, C. 2015. “Professional Roles in News Content: Six Dimensions of Journalistic Role Performance”. Journalism Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2014.922276; Mellado, C., L. Hellmueller, and W. Donsbach. 2016. Journalistic Role Performance Concepts, Contexts, and Methods. Routledge) in combination with Tuchman’s (1972. “Objectivity as Strategic Ritual”. American Journal of Sociology 77 (4): 660–679) seminal work on “Objectivity as Strategic Ritual”. This combined framework enables an analysis of how journalists negotiate ideals of objective reporting and activist imperatives when covering the movement and issues of gender (in)equality more broadly. Our study shows that journalists, to a varying degree, felt torn between ideals of impartiality and objectivity and ideals of active reporting oriented towards action and problem-solving but that these experiences differed between the two countries and between newsrooms. We discuss these findings in light of differences in the political climates around issues related to gender in the two countries and partially diverging normative ideals and professional journalistic cultures regarding the extent to which journalism and activism can and should be combined.

In climate news, statements from large businesses and opponents of climate action receive heightened visibility

Whose voices are most likely to receive news coverage in the US debate about climate change? Elite cues embedded in mainstream media can influence public opinion on climate change, so it is important to understand whose perspectives are most likely to be represented. Here, I use plagiarism-detection software to analyze the media coverage of a large random sample of business, government, and social advocacy organizations' press releases about climate change (n = 1,768), examining which messages are cited in all articles published about climate change in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and USA Today from 1985 to 2014 (n = 34,948). I find that press releases opposing action to address climate change are about twice as likely to be cited in national newspapers as are press releases advocating for climate action. In addition, messages from business coalitions and very large businesses are more likely than those from other types of organizations to receive coverage. Surprisingly, press releases from organizations providing scientific and technical services are less likely to receive news coverage than are other press releases in my sample, suggesting that messages from organizations with greater scientific expertise receive less media attention. These findings support previous scholars' claims that journalistic norms of balance and objectivity have distorted the public debate around climate change, while providing evidence that the structural power of business interests lends them heightened visibility in policy debates.

A defense of objectivity in the social sciences, rightly understood

In this article, I mount a defense of objectivity as a fitting and necessary norm for the conduct of social scientific research. A number of social scientists and philosophers have criticized this norm because it seems to call for disinterested investigations that are free from any kind of evaluative judgments and seems overwhelmingly to favor quantitative research. I argue that these criteria are inappropriately used as guidelines for objectivity. Researchers can comply with the norm of objectivity, rightly understood, and still be interested observers, make value judgments in relation to their research, and conduct qualitative studies. I argue instead that the norm of objectivity refers to a set of guidelines for interpreting and reporting on research that views this reporting as an intelligible, reasonable, and inherently reciprocating, public activity. By implication these norms also establish correlative guidelines for gathering and analyzing research information. Briefly, as investigators social scientists are called upon honestly to represent our research, to use measures and terms of references that allow for comparisons and verifications by our audiences, and to exercise responsible judgments. I conclude that my account of objectivity is consistent with Weber’s defense of this norm more than a century ago.

The Prevalence and Rationale for Presenting an Opposing Viewpoint in Climate Change Reporting: Findings from a U.S. National Survey of TV Weathercasters

AbstractThe journalistic norm of balance has been described as the practice of giving equal weight to different sides of a story; false balance is balanced reporting when the weight of evidence strongly favors one side over others—for example, the reality of human-caused climate change. False balance is problematic because it skews public perception of expert agreement. Through formative interviews and a survey of American weathercasters about climate change reporting, we found that objectivity and balance—topics that have frequently been studied with environmental journalists—are also relevant to understanding climate change reporting among weathercasters. Questions about the practice of and reasons for presenting an opposing viewpoint when reporting on climate change were included in a 2017 census survey of weathercasters working in the United States (N = 480; response rate = 22%). When reporting on climate change, 35% of weathercasters present an opposing viewpoint “always” or “most of the time.” Their rationale for reporting opposing viewpoints included the journalistic norms of objectivity and balanced reporting (53%), their perceived uncertainty of climate science (21%), to acknowledge differences of opinion (17%), to maintain credibility (14%), and to strengthen the story (7%). These findings show that climate change reporting from weathercasters sometimes includes opposing viewpoints, and possibly a false balance, but further research is necessary. Moreover, prior research has shown that the climate reporting practices among weathercasters are evolving rapidly and so the problem of false-balance reporting may already be self-correcting.