In January, I argued reporters should report and write like referees and umpires rather than players and coaches on a team. Seeking objective truth is the epistemic ideal, I wrote. To ditch objectivity is to embrace dangerous subjectivity. Which Americans wish to read stories written by Chinese government officials?

This question notwithstanding, the argument for objectivity has long come under attack as unrealistic and unworkable. Doesn’t everybody have biases? Since the attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, the case against objectivity has taken a new turn. To some influential progressives, objectivity is a form of political naivete. As press critic Jay Rosen said in a podcast earlier this month,  

The people in the Republican Party understand that they cannot win without defeating the media. And that’s what Steve Bannon’s remark is about. It’s a very important remark, where he says to Michael Lewis — the first part is really important — the Democrats don’t matter. The real opposition is the media. And the way to deal with them is to flood the zone with shit. This is a very precise statement of the shift that I’m talking about, where you don’t even regard the Democratic Party as the real opponent. The real opponent is the media. So that’s a structural conflict between the party and how it wants to operate, and this profession, or occupation, of reporting on politics.

Mr. Rosen’s critique is of “both-sides” journalism: reporters should air the arguments of political partisans regardless of their merit. He argues this gives free publicity to manipulators, conspiracy theorists, and disinformation specialists like former President Trump and his political advisor, Mr. Bannon.   

Mr. Rosen’s critique is not so much wrong as it is misleading. He conflates neutrality with objectivity.

The meaning of objectivity

To be sure, neutrality is one part of objectivity. Consider two of my paternal uncles, both of whom are first-rate sports referees. When officiating a game, they strive to be neutral; they don’t care if Team Biden or Team Trump wins or loses. Former Washington Post Executive Editor Leonard Downie, Jr., went so far in the directionof neutrality as to say he refused to vote. 

Objectivity means being not only neutral but also committed to upholding an objective, agreed-upon standard. 

My uncles judge each team fairly. If one team commits 1, 51 or 100 percent of the fouls, they blow their whistles based on the rulebook. They don’t call fouls or penalties based on personal whims or hazy standards. They have a widespread, objective measure. If Team Trump commits 90 percent of the fouls, they call it that way.

Reporters have agreed-upon standards, too, not the least of which is the Society of Professional Journalists’ code for ethics. 

What’s more, being objective means being part of a self-conscious community of disinterested observers and enforcers. My uncles aren’t subjective actors. They are referees. They wear black and white uniforms, wear whistles around their necks, and study the rules.

Mr. Rosen, following the philosopher Thomas Nagel, calls objectivity as “the view from nowhere.” That’s dismissive. Objectivity might be defined as “the view from the detached observer.” While Mr. Rosen fears objectivity can no longer suffice in a digital age, he makes a perennial straw-man argument.

Objectivity is a difficult ideal to uphold, as it requires reporters to get outside their subjectivity. That doesn’t mean it is worth junking. It just means training and self-discipline.  

– 30 – 

For a more academic (and perhaps better-argued!) case for objectivity in journalism, I recommend this video from New Yorker writer Nicholas Lemann, an acquaintance whom I consider one of the country’s best reporters in the last few generations.