One of journalism’s favorite notions is that we don’t become part of the story. We are supposed to be some sort of object (you know, objective) that doesn’t feel, that stays aloof and writes from an omniscient perch above it all.
It is a lie, and we need to stop repeating it. The first principle of the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics is “Seek truth and report it.” Here is the truth about journalism: Journalists aren’t objects; we are people. We feel. We have families and emotions. We have moral standards. When we show up for truly personal or potentially volatile interviews or events, we become part of the story and denying that violates our obligation to tell the truth.
But the Society of Professional Journalists denied it this week, somberly cautioning journalists in Haiti: “Report the story, don’t become part of it.” As I have written before, my family became a small part of the Haiti story this month. I will address the ethics of that story shortly. But first I want to write about the underlying ethical principles. I teach ethics in journalism seminars across North America (Ottawa, Canada, and Berkeley, Calif., this month), and I know that journalists sometimes like to reduce ethics to simple do-this-don’t-do-that rules. And ethics often aren’t that simple.
Another principle of the SPJ Code of Ethics is “Act independently.” I believe in that principle. But I don’t think it’s as simple as we sometimes try to make it. Yes, our journalism must remain independent of people in power and of the commercial interests who fund our news organizations. But when did independence morph into aloofness and lack of humanity?
I have known that journalists couldn’t avoid becoming part of the story since I was a fledgling journalist in high school. I had been a varsity runner in the fall for Shenandoah High School’s first cross country team. I also was a part-time sports writer for the Evening Sentinel, covering the Corner Conference, smaller schools in the surrounding area. Before track season began, the sports editor, Chuck Offenburger, got a job at the Des Moines Register and I took over coverage of Shenandoah sports. I planned not to run track. I hadn’t been that good at cross country. I was ready to concentrate on my journalism career and leave athletics behind. But most of the basketball team got caught drinking at state tournament and suspended from sports for a couple months. Few of Shen’s best athletes could run in track meets.
Shen didn’t even have a miler and I could run the mile. So one way or another I was part of the story. Either I wrote about the lack of distance runners and mentioned that in addition to the suspensions, one varsity cross country runner had decided to become a sports writer. Or I ran and figured out how to cover myself as part of the story. At that tender age, I was not yet aware of SPJ (then known as Sigma Delta Chi) or its code of ethics, but I recognized the difficult situation. At that tender age, I also did not budget my time very well. So I went out for track, while covering the track team for the local paper. I earned a varsity letter and two fourth-place ribbons, meriting nothing more than an occasional mention at the end of the story.
In the journalism education that began the next year and in the career that unfolded in nearly four decades since, I learned about the journalistic principle of objectivity. And I grew as a person. And I learned that the notion of objectivity is a fig leaf for journalists who don’t want to deal honestly with our own humanity and don’t want to take personal responsibility for the human impact of our journalism. We’re just doing our jobs. We’re just being objective. Objects can’t be responsible.
Journalism is practiced by flesh-and-blood people with families and pulses. We can and should uphold professional standards such as fairness and accuracy and verification. But when we deny our humanity, we lie to our readers. And sometimes we miss the story. Yes, we should honor the ethical principle of independence, but the SPJ code explaining that principle acknowledges the difficult balance it entails: “Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived,” it warns us. Then in the next breath it acknowledges that’s not always possible: “Disclose unavoidable conflicts.”
As I spent more time working more difficult stories, I recognized that my humanity helped me gain the trust of a character I was interviewing and learn her story in a way an aloof, objective reporter could not. Empathy and understanding became essential interviewing and writing tools. As I noted in an earlier post about Allen Thompson’s riveting account of his quest for the truth about two killings in Rwanda, the heart is a powerful journalistic tool. Allen (whom I had dinner with this week in Ottawa) didn’t inject himself into that story. He was a character in it and he either told the story truthfully or he didn’t. I’m glad he did.
If you tell a story, sometimes you become a part of it. If you write a story about the trauma of sexual abuse (as I have far too many times), you add to that trauma by asking about it and by writing about it (in follow-up interviews, I have been told more than once that the first interview brought nightmares). To pretend you can’t become part of that story is a lie. Even if I tell the story entirely in third person, I am now part of the pain that I write about.
If you write a story about a youth’s suicide and the impact it has on the parents, you become part of that impact. When a distraught mother was wailing during an interview, on her knees practically embracing a large framed portrait of her daughter, the human heart beating inside of me couldn’t remain on the couch with my notebook, waiting objectively to write down the next coherent quote. I had to get up, step across a line that is artificial anyway and put an arm around her, offering a moment of human comfort. I was pretty much at the end of the interview by then, but I stuck around another hour or two, listening and talking sympathetically as a lucky dad to a grieving mom. I called from the road on a phony journalistic premise about a half-hour after I left just to be sure she was OK (as OK as a grieving mom can be). I knew she was when she asked, “You’re checking up on me, aren’t you?” She assured me her husband had locked up all the pills and potential weapons. I didn’t call again, but I still worried.
As I’ve written before, my niece Mandy Poulter and her husband Matt had completed adoption procedures for an orphan from Haiti, Maya Esther, when the earthquake hit. When I pitched the story to colleagues in other news organizations, I raised the possibility of Matt accompanying their crews to Haiti, if that didn’t cross their ethical boundaries. I recognized from the first that this story could present ethical challenges.
No one bought my pitch, but my son Mike, once a U.S. senator’s communications director, tipped a Nightline producer to the situation. ABC jumped on the story and Robin Roberts became part of Maya’s story. Using Matt’s directions, she found the orphanage and found Maya, calling Mandy back home in Pella, Iowa, as ABC captured Mandy’s joy on a Skype connection. On a live Good Morning America interview the next morning, Roberts asked Mandy and Matt how they planned to bring Maya home and Mandy said off the cuff that she hoped Roberts could bring Maya back to the United States with her.
Well, Roberts was clearly touched by Maya’s story and ABC recognized the value of being able to tell a happy story among all the heartbreaking coverage of Haiti. And clearly, Roberts and her ABC colleagues have beating hearts and human empathy, too. They wanted to see Maya come home to Iowa, not just for the great story, but because all the agony of Haiti was weighing on them as moms and dads and brothers and sisters who could imagine their own families dealing with such a catastrophe.
So when the U.S. Embassy in Port-au-Prince said they had Maya’s visa ready, Mandy and Matt were ready to fly to Haiti to bring her home. But getting into Haiti is no easy trick now, so ABC helped. Mandy and Matt flew to the Dominican Republic on their own dime. From there, they flew into Haiti on one of four daily helicopter flights ABC makes to bring supplies to its news crews. ABC also supplied the vehicle (sorry, no rental agencies working in Haiti right now) that Mandy and Matt used to get to the orphanage and to take Maya and some other children to the U.S. Embassy and finally to the airport. (In addition to bringing Maya home, they were able to bring back four more orphans being adopted by other Pella couples.) And yes, with ABC providing the vehicles, ABC told the whole story.
Then Mandy, Matt and the children flew to Florida on a military cargo plane evacuating Americans. And Matt’s employer, Pella Corp., maker of Pella Windows, flew them home on a corporate jet. It was a happy story not just for our family, and ABC milked it enthusiastically (and is not done; Roberts said she’d visit them in Pella sometime and I’m sure we’ll see that on GMA).
After I blogged and tweeted about it, Jared Taylor, a journalist in Texas, asked on Twitter whether I thought it was ethical “for ABC to fly the Poulters there and cover the story.”
Yes, I do. The SPJ code says to “refuse” free travel. But it does not say not to give free travel. I have provided transportation (and picked up the tab for meals) for people I was writing about.
When I was a reporter for the Omaha World-Herald, a victim of sexual assault contacted me, wanting to reach a rape victim I had written about. They had both been attacked by the same man. One lived in a small Iowa town, one in Omaha. They wanted to talk to each other. I drove the Omaha woman to the Iowa town. They talked with each other for a while, then invited me into the conversation. I got a good story out of it. I’m sure that’s not the only time I provided transportation for a source.
In our exchange of tweets, Taylor agreed that ABC’s involvement in Maya’s story was ethical: “If ABC was going there anyway, then it’s cool. And given this circumstance, they made more of a difference than just reporting.”
Of course, my personal involvement may taint my judgment and my credibility on this issue, but I don’t think ABC’s involvement with Maya’s rescue from Haiti was unethical. The only transportation ABC provided was two seats on a helicopter that was going to Haiti anyway and ground transportation in a chaotic situation where no other options were available. I cannot liken the ride on an ABC helicopter in an emergency situation to NBC’s flying David Goldman and his son home from Brazil while covering Goldman’s international custody battle. SPJ criticized NBC’s involvement in that story (rightly, in my view).
The SPJ code says: “Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money; avoid bidding for news.” ABC was not trading favors for information and they were not bidding for Mandy and Matt’s story. They found a little girl, provided a helicopter ride and an SUV ride that helped reunite her with her legal parents and they disclosed their involvement in the story. Perhaps they danced up to an ethical line, but their full disclosure kept them on the right side of it.
I should note here that journalists and journalism organizations have a long tradition of involvement in humanitarian efforts. Holiday seasons find many news organizations promoting collections of money, toys, coats or other donations for the needy. Early in my journalism career, the Des Moines Register played a key role in a campaign to collect relief supplies for refugees fleeing the Khmer Rouge genocide in Cambodia. Reporter Bill Simbro accompanied a flight delivering the supplies to refugee camps in Thailand. As a young assistant city editor, I took Simbro’s stories by dictation over a horrible international phone line.
And we get involved in less important stories for promotional reasons. The Register promotes RAGBRAI every year and Gazette Communications sponsors local events that our journalists cover.
Most of the journalistic debate relating to ethics in Haiti centers on doctor-journalists practicing medicine and reporting on their work and the work of other health professionals. The debate resulted in the SPJ press release I mentioned earlier, in which President Kevin Smith said, “Advocacy, self promotion, offering favors for news and interviews, injecting oneself into the story or creating news events for coverage is not objective reporting, and it ultimately calls into question the ability of a journalist to be independent, which can damage credibility.”
The press release continued:
Undoubtedly, journalists walk a fine line to balance their professional responsibilities with their humanity when covering disasters. SPJ does not nor would it ever criticize or downplay the humane acts journalists are performing in Haiti. But news organizations must use caution to avoid blurring the lines between being a participant and being an objective observer.
“No one wants to see human suffering, and reporting on these events can certainly take on a personal dimension. But participating in events, even with the intention of dramatizing the humanity of the situation, takes news reporting in a different direction and places journalists in a situation they should not be in, and that is one of forgoing their roles as informants,” Smith said.
Jeff Jarvis, one of my favorite commentators on journalism, ripped into SPJ (this is just a sampling of his critical tweets):
Who the hell is the Society of Professional Journalists to tell reporters how to behave in Haiti? What gall.
SPJ: Don’t cry. And for God’s sake, (this mean’s you, CNN’s doctor), don’t cure anyone. How tasteless.
Tyler Dukes defended SPJ (and articulated the position much better than SPJ did) and criticized Jarvis.
While I don’t embrace the promotional tone of some of the doctors’ TV reports, I regarded the SPJ statement as aloof and pompous, giving lip service to the fact that journalists in Haiti operate amid suffering beyond comprehension but insisting that human compassion in a catastrophe should not trump treasured notions about journalism. The statement reflects a view that values rules over judgment. It reflects an ignorance of the organization’s own ethics code (which does not mention objectivity). It ignores the fact that journalists inject themselves into the Haiti story when they land there. Their presence there and their skill in finding and telling stories mobilizes government and charity. Their work also takes up resources and time that could otherwise be devoted to relief efforts. If you want to stay out of the story, don’t go.
And if you send doctors to cover the story as journalists, remember that journalism ethics are not their only ethical code. Like that slow kid who couldn’t write about a shortage of distance runners when he was one of them, a doctor in Haiti can’t and shouldn’t resist joining the race to save lives.
[…] Media regarding this issue. Gazette Communications Innovation Coach Steve Buttry also provided an incredibly thoughtful analysis coming from the other side of this argument that actually prompted a response from […]
LikeLike
I think you have attributed far more to the SPJ statement than was there. (Props for linking to it so we could see for ourselves).
Which part of this do you disagree with?
“I think it’s important for journalists to be cognizant of their roles in disaster coverage,” SPJ President Kevin Smith said. “Advocacy, self promotion, offering favors for news and interviews, injecting oneself into the story or creating news events for coverage is not objective reporting, and it ultimately calls into question the ability of a journalist to be independent, which can damage credibility.”
Jarvis reacted to one aspect of the society’s advice with vituperation and little thought. To me, that isn’t good journalism or good commentary.
Your analysis, far more nuanced, likewise conflates the SPJ’s general guidelines/advice with numerous specific situations, any of which might or might not have been the kind of thing the statement addresses.
And as for the “Don’t cry,” accusation, that strikes me as simple demagoguery, i.e. “impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices” of the audience.
LikeLike
Howard,
Thanks for your thoughtful response.
I believe I responded quite specifically above to Smith’s points about objectivity and “injecting oneself into the story.” I’m not sure what he means about “creating news events for coverage” in the Haiti context, but if that refers to doctor/journos operating on patients, I believe I already expressed my disagreement on that point. As for “offering favors for news and interviews,” again, I am unsure what he means. But if it would include giving Mandy and Matt a seat on a helicopter or driving them to the orphanage, Embassy and airport, again I disagree. How many journalists have bought lunch for a source in far less severe conditions than Haiti? Was that offering favors for news and interviews? As for self-promotion, I think you can promote content ethically and can promote your role in getting the story. If not, every organization I ever worked for was unethical.
Mostly I objected to the tone as pompous and not reflecting the reality of covering a disaster.
LikeLike
I’ve always bristled at the ‘objectivity is dead’ crowd, the ones who are basically saying “you’re biased, so show it, don’t hide it!”
This, however, is another matter entirely – and very articulately, wonderfully presented. Thanks, Steve. I sometimes think if the Great Unwashed Public understood a bit more about the balancing acts we face and the tough decisions, there would be less of the unfair criticism. Maybe.
LikeLike
[…] Media regarding this issue. Gazette Communications Innovation Coach Steve Buttry also provided an incredibly thoughtful analysis coming from the other side of this argument that actually prompted a response from […]
P.S.: Forgot to mention great post!
LikeLike
[…] Steve Buttry, who is related to that Iowa couple, writes that there are times when journalists’ humanity should take over, and this was […]
LikeLike
[…] Tyler Dukes listed them and fired back at Jarvis, while Gazette Communications’ Steve Buttry joined Jarvis’ attack on SPJ. NPR’s “On the Media” brought in a few more takes, and St. Petersburg […]
LikeLike
[…] I’ve never read a rethink-objectivity argument quite like Steve Buttry’s recent post on the subject. The language he uses is unexpected — and gets at the heart of why […]
LikeLike
[…] And I learned that the notion of objectivity is a fig leaf for journalists who don’t want to deal honestly with our own humanity and don’t want to take personal responsibility for the human impact of our journalism. We’re just doing our jobs. We’re just being objective. Objects can’t be responsible. via stevebuttry.wordpress.com […]
LikeLike
[…] Humanity is more important and honest than objectivity for journalists And I learned that the notion of objectivity is a fig leaf for journalists who don’t want to deal honestly with our own humanity and don’t want to take personal responsibility for the human impact of our journalism. We’re just doing our jobs. We’re just being objective. Objects can’t be responsible. via stevebuttry.wordpress.com […]
LikeLike
[…] And I learned that the notion of objectivity is a fig leaf for journalists who don’t want to deal honestly with our own humanity and don’t want to take personal responsibility for the human impact of our journalism. We’re just doing our jobs. We’re just being objective. Objects can’t be responsible. via stevebuttry.wordpress.com […]
LikeLike
[…] Humanity is more important and honest than objectivity for journalists […]
LikeLike
I agree 100% Steve. I am going to Haiti on Wednesday, as a reporter, but obviously my own reactions to the things I will see and feel will become a part of the story. There’s nothing wrong with that, it will make my articles more human and more real.
LikeLike
[…] he was the C3 Innovation Coach at Gazette Communications in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Blog Post: Humanity is more important and honest than objectivity for journalists Quote: “One of journalism’s favorite notions is that we don’t become part of the story. […]
LikeLike
[…] I have already written that journalism organizations should reassess their slavish devotion to the false god of objectivity. But Weigel knew the Post worshipped at the altar of that god. In fact, the very […]
LikeLike
[…] that the Society of Professional Journalists needs to update its Code of Ethics. I wrote about objectivity and humanity in journalism and about plagiarism, accuracy and anonymous comments. I faulted reporters who trade silence for […]
LikeLike
[…] Humanity is more important and honest than objectivity for journalists […]
LikeLike
[…] journalists fail to develop a strong personal brand, though. Journalism has an ethic of “objectivity” that pushes us to pretend we are objects, not people. And you can’t develop a personal […]
LikeLike
[…] asset, while other industries outside of publishing have embraced it. Journalism has an ethic of “objectivity” that pushes us to pretend we are objects, not people. And you can’t develop a personal brand […]
LikeLike
[…] point of view to develop a strong brand. (If you work for a news organization that nurtures the notion of objectivity, you might be able to take stronger positions about issues in journalism, while remaining neutral […]
LikeLike
[…] In the journalism education that began the next year and in the career that unfolded in nearly four decades since, I learned about the journalistic principle of objectivity. And I grew as a person. And I learned that the notion of objectivity is a fig leaf for journalists who don’t want to deal honestly with our own humanity and don’t want to take personal responsibility for the human impact of our journalism. We’re just doing our jobs. We’re just being objective. Humanity is more important and honest than objectivity for journalists « The Buttry Diary […]
LikeLike
[…] Humanity is more important and honest than objectivity for journalists […]
LikeLike
[…] Humanity is more important and honest than objectivity for journalists […]
LikeLike
[…] Humanity is more important and honest than objectivity for journalists […]
LikeLike
[…] you want to uphold in your newsroom. For instance, you may be rethinking the traditional notion of objectivity, so you should be leading newsroom discussions about when and where it might be appropriate for […]
LikeLike
[…] Humanity is more important and honest than objectivity for journalists […]
LikeLike
[…] Humanity is more important and honest than objectivity for journalists […]
LikeLike
[…] one who has blogged about the importance of humanity in telling stories and about the heart as a tool of journalism, I initially pondered blogging about the movie’s […]
LikeLike
[…] Humanity is more important and honest than objectivity for journalists […]
LikeLike
[…] have blogged before about the heart as a reporting tool and about the relative importance of humanity and objectivity. We might discuss this some more in class […]
LikeLike
[…] Humanity is more important and honest than objectivity for journalists […]
LikeLike
[…] have argued that we do better journalism by bringing our humanity to our stories, that the heart is one of journalism’s most important tools and that my editors erred by not […]
LikeLike
[…] that I heard you. And I don’t worry about compromising objectivity because I think it’s a myth anyway. My tough questions convey that I’m here to do a story that’s not necessarily the story […]
LikeLike
[…] is important in an emotional interview. But you’re a human and your humanity helps you get and understand and tell the story. Don’t be ashamed of brushing away a tear. Take a restroom break if you need to (the source […]
LikeLike
[…] with the quote based off the ethical issues that arise when presenting human suffering for a story. “Journalists who don’t want to deal honestly with our own humanity and don’t want to take pers…, and I questioned their opinions on the idea of ‘human suffering’ for a […]
LikeLike
[…] the intersection of religion and politics, partly because the he-said-she-said story form and the tradition of “objective” journalism hinder journalists from calling bullshit on the hypocrisy and exploitation that many […]
LikeLike
[…] Humanity is more important and honest than objectivity for journalists […]
LikeLike
[…] Humanity is more important and honest than objectivity for journalists […]
LikeLike
[…] is one area where journalists’ claims of objectivity and efforts to achieve objectivity become laughable. As I’ve said in other contexts, we are […]
LikeLike
[…] Humanity is more important and honest than objectivity for journalists […]
LikeLike
[…] Humanity is more important and honest than objectivity for journalists […]
LikeLike
[…] Humanity is more important and honest than objectivity for journalists […]
LikeLike
[…] Humanity is more important and honest than objectivity for journalists […]
LikeLike
I am deeply sorry to hear of your illness. I pray that you recover. I hope for the best for you and your family.
News and Objectivity?
The claims you make about “objective journalism” seem illogical to me. You reject an assumed definition that no one supports. I can’t imagine anyone affirming that journalists must approach a story without a personal point of view. That simply distorts the meaning of “objectivity,” creating a strawman to refute.
Please note, research scientists attempting to answer scientific questions also approach their investigations with personal views and values. That’s not a problem unless they use these to distort their findings. As the late Dr. Jacob Bronowski (the respected philosopher of science) points out, science is a very human enterprise; one cannot really abstract its’definition, nature, and function, from the human history through which it emerges. That sentiment provided the foundation for his book and series, “The Ascent of Man,” which offered his personal perspective on man’s intellectual and cultural history.
Bronowski, however, would not approve of including in a scientific paper the kinds of stories and personal insights that he included in this impressive series. That would have been a category mistake. He was not a confused scholar. The sciences concur in this view. Fortunately, physics and chemistry have not given up on the “objective” reporting of results. Researchers might want to tell personal stories, too, but in the scientific papers I have read, this impulse is typically disciplined.
Frequently, however, such information comes out in biographies. That’s fine. Researchers’ human frustrations, fears, anger, and related feelings also come out. That’s fine, too. But a biography is literature, not science. It’s good to keep the categories apart. This is also a good distinction for journalists to make regarding the news and how they feel about it.
I see nothing wrong with you writing an autobiography. You have the skills. I would prefer, however, NOT to see your autobiographical information in the news stories you submit. Commentary? Yes! News? No!
Your claim, as I see it, seems ultimately to be that objectivity in the news is impossible, so let’s stop fooling ourselves. Would you also agree that objectivity in physics, medical research, and chemistry, are equally absurd, so let’s stop fooling ourselves? Am I missing something here?
Those who made “The Triumph of the Will” approached their subject, I am sure, with personal moral views and biases. What they produced, however, was propaganda. I don’t call it propaganda because it failed to express the “human” feelings of the Nazis who made it. I call it that because it was an absurd, metaphysical nonsense bathed in emotion to manipulate the feelings of the German people. I am sure it seemed quite human to them, and it was useful propaganda for Hitler. It was still absurd nonsense.
Consequently, I prefer a reporter to relate the facts objectively to the best of his or her ability. I don’t need emotion, and I can build my own stories using the facts. I don’t need the reporter’s help. The more serious the news event, the more I want the facts and the less I want interpretation. I will not judge a failure harshly, but I expect a reporter to strive for that ideal. That’s the covenant. If the reporter has a story to tell, that’s commentary. Put it on the editorial page.
What should the citizen say when news organizations fail to live up to that covenant consistently? When they parade biases as news stories? When they attempt to shape public opinion because they know better? When they publish doctored photos (as Reuters was caught doing) to fit a preferred narrative? When reporters defend their discredited stories that invent crimes and defame the innocent (as Rolling Stone Sabrina Erdely was found guilty of doing)? The late Senator Parick Moynahan offered this rebuke, “You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.”
If you want to be more human, write a novel and invest your characters with your humanity. You might create a classic. But if you are reporting the news, then please keep that sacred covenant with public: Speak the truth, and tell the facts. Don’t give me patronizing nonsense about how hard, boring, or impossible that is. Though not always done perfectly, research scientists do that already. You can, too. When you don’t, you give up the one objective thing that makes news relevant to people. Even if you are “the most interesting man in the world,” your humanity will not offer a suitable substitute for the facts.
What happens when journalist break the covenant? People lose confidence in the news and those who provide it, just as the Russian people lost confidence in their news providers. You might remember this Russian quip from the Cold War that summarized the people’s attitude toward the official Soviet papers, Pravda (truth) and Izvestia (news): “There is no truth in the News, and there is no news in the Truth.”
LikeLike