In this blog post, we will examine the concept of objectivity in media reporting, its limitations, and the structural reasons behind its tendencies.
Discussions on media objectivity can be divided into “true objectivity,” “agreed objectivity,” and “accepted objectivity.” “True objectivity” refers to a state in which human subjective interpretation is completely excluded. However, since it is impossible to fully understand any object of observation through the five senses, it is virtually impossible to achieve true objectivity. This is an absolute and ideal concept, and it is fundamentally impossible for the media to achieve true objectivity. “Agreed objectivity” relates to the procedures and formats of reporting and coverage. Journalists usually conduct interviews and report according to agreed-upon procedures and formats, and the objectivity achieved in this process is agreed-upon objectivity. For example, news articles are written through a formal process to exclude bias and are structured according to a set format, such as the five Ws and one H. This method provides a consistent standard of objectivity. “Accepted objectivity” is based on how faithfully media reports reflect reality. In other words, accepted objectivity is established based on how accurately the media reproduces actual events and situations. If the media reflects reality as it is, the report is considered to have achieved accepted objectivity. Furthermore, if readers accept the report as consistent with reality, they also recognize its accepted objectivity. The issue of objectivity in the media is embodied in the distinction between facts and opinions in the actual reporting process. This is based on the belief that objectivity can be ensured by clearly distinguishing between verifiable facts and opinions that contain subjective judgments or value judgments. However, in actual reporting, objectivity is often compromised by the intervention of certain biases. First, the selection of facts itself may be biased. This is because, in cases involving complex facts, only certain sources and quotations are selectively presented, emphasizing only some of the facts. In addition, many articles contain euphemistic expressions. This involves using language that contains evaluative implications based on a particular point of view to describe events or subjects in a positive or negative light. Furthermore, there is also the issue of presupposed values. This is the case when the media considers a certain issue to be important or assigns a certain value to it, and then reflects this in its reporting as a matter of course. This leads to the description of facts based on certain values, while excluding other values. Unfounded opinions are also a problem. This refers to cases where evaluations, judgments, or opinions are presented without factual basis. There is also the issue of consistency. This refers to cases where the same issue is evaluated positively at one time and negatively at another, based on different values, ideologies, or judgments applied depending on the situation. Finally, there is the issue of fairness. This refers to cases where the opinions of parties criticized or evaluated in a news report are not adequately reflected in the article. Such biased reporting provides readers with not only information but also a framework for interpretation, and readers internalize a particular perspective based on such reporting.
So why does the media show such tendencies? Is it because they are unaware of their own tendencies? Or is it because they are unable to deal with them even though they are aware of them? Or is it intentional? First of all, it is difficult to believe that the media is unaware of its own tendencies. For a long time, numerous media scholars have raised criticism and concerns about media bias, and relevant organizations have been monitoring it continuously. In addition, many media companies have included relevant provisions in their own codes of ethics. Considering these circumstances, it is difficult to believe that the media is completely unaware of its own tendencies. If so, it may be that the media is aware of its tendencies but is unable to address them for other reasons. The tendencies of the media did not arise by chance, but can rather be seen as a historical tradition that has been systematically formed and passed down.
Even on controversial issues, the media may consciously maintain a bias in accordance with its role of defending certain values and enlightening society. However, another explanation is also possible. The media may strategically choose to be biased. In a socially conflict-ridden atmosphere, it may be a more effective strategy to provide coverage that aligns with the position of a specific readership rather than trying to cover all perspectives.
This can be understood as a way to maintain loyal readers and secure stable advertising revenue.
Although journalists are skeptical about achieving objectivity, they do not completely abandon the ideal of objectivity in their actual reporting. The principle of distinguishing between facts and opinions is used as a strategy to make the media appear objective and as a means of concealing subjective judgments.
