Journalists: A Powerful "Priesthood"

The dichotomy of journalists being a part of a “priesthood” yet having their own personal worldviews is fascinating, and last week’s group aptly delved into this intricate and complicated relationship between these two aspects.  During this election season in particular, these conflicting tendencies are both relevant and arguably more visible.  

On one hand, journalists fulfill a watchdog role in which they monitor governmental and societal activities to point out corruption that could be detrimental to citizens.  Edmund Burke coined the term “the Fourth Estate” to describe how reporters can act as extensions of government.  After tonight’s presidential debate, for example, New York Times reporters performed avid fact checking of President Obama’s and Governor Romney’s respective comments implicitly in the name of providing the American people with accurate details so they can make informed decisions when voting during this critical election: http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/debates/presidential/2012-10-16#sha=b658a6d0a.  

Similarly, to accomplish this goal of providing and promoting truth and upstanding moral values, another aspect of this “priesthood” is a separated journalist who remains objective and presents a fair and balanced report.  While this is a lofty and noble goal, it is extremely unlikely and arguably impossible to actually implement.  Journalists come from different backgrounds in terms of ethnicity, gender, religion, age, and numerous other factors, and these facets of their character color the lens by which they evaluate global events.  Cultural differences are especially important to note because journalists will report with different tones coming from a high context culture as opposed to a low context culture.  German audiences, for instance, are high context cultures in the way that they are uncomfortable with ambiguities, so in this case, journalists will provide more details about the story.  American audiences, by contrast, are more at ease with ambiguities, and if the journalist writes with too many details, it can be perceived as condescending in this scenario.

Although established journalists and editors pass on these principles of objectivity and protection to audiences in the process of socializing aspiring journalists, are these values actually reflected in current publications?  When comparing an analysis of tonight’s presidential debate with a reporter from the New York Times to another journalist in the Washington Times, there are noticeable differences.  In their article entitled “Rivals Bare Fists to Rematch” Jim Rutenberg and Jeff Zeleny of the New York Times had a more liberal view of the debate, at one point asserting that President Obama would “often dictate the terms of the debate.”  Stephen Dinan’s and Susan Crabtree’s article entitled “Obama, Romney Clash on Jobs, Energy and Libya at second debate” in the Washington Times takes a more conservative stance by including more of Governor Romney’s effective comments: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/16/second-debate-kicks-obama-romney-clash-jobs/?page=1.

Just as we all are, journalists are defined by their beliefs, attitudes, and values.  While some of these characteristics are extremely personal and are determined on an individual basis, it is important to note that at least journalists generally share and strive to provide ethical values and objectivity if they do not achieve this goal.