In this blog post, we will examine the various concepts of “objectivity” in media reporting, its practical limitations, and the structural issues behind it.
Today’s news consumers demand “objectivity” in media reporting. Comments such as “Reporters should be neutral,” “The media is biased,” and “They only report one side of the story” ultimately boil down to the question of how “objective” the media is. Media companies also claim that their reporting is objective and that they convey the facts without bias. But can media reports really be completely objective?
To answer this question, we must first examine what the concept of “objectivity” means. Media objectivity is not a single concept, but can be understood in various ways depending on the situation and perspective. Generally, objectivity is thought to mean “reporting neutrally based on facts,” but academia takes a more nuanced view of objectivity.
In media studies, media objectivity is generally divided into three categories. The first is ideal and absolute objectivity, in which human subjectivity does not intervene. The second is objectivity secured in accordance with customary standards within the media industry. The third is objectivity at a level that readers can accept as accurately reflecting reality. The meaning and usefulness of each concept varies slightly depending on how it intersects with the reality of media reporting.
First, “true objectivity,” which is considered the most fundamental concept, literally means a state in which human subjective interpretation is completely excluded. In other words, it means conveying only the facts “as they are” without the value judgments or interpretations of reporters or editors. This concept may be possible in theory, but in reality, it is close to an unattainable ideal. Human perception of the world is limited by the physical limitations of the five senses and cultural constraints of language, so no one can capture and convey facts from a completely neutral perspective. Ultimately, true objectivity may be meaningful as an ideal standard, but it is a concept that is fundamentally unattainable in actual media reporting.
However, this does not mean that the media completely abandons objectivity and only presents subjective interpretations. In reality, there are efforts to ensure the reliability and objectivity of reporting through certain procedures and formats. In academia, this is referred to as “agreed objectivity.” Agreed objectivity is objectivity that is created in accordance with officially adopted reporting and news coverage procedures within the media industry, as well as formal standards for writing articles. For example, news articles are written according to the five Ws and a whys, quoting both sides in a balanced manner and minimizing bias. These procedures and formats serve as mechanisms to control the arbitrary judgment of media outlets and journalists and maintain a certain level of reliability in reporting. In this way, objectivity can be achieved based on specific standards and rules, and this is the form of objectivity that the media strives to achieve in reality.
However, even if formal procedures are followed, there is no guarantee that readers will accept the report as fact. This is where the concept of “accepted objectivity” comes in. Accepted objectivity is judged based on how accurately the report reproduces reality and how convincingly readers accept it. The criteria are not the format of the report, but the truthfulness and realism of its content and how closely it resembles the actual event in the minds of readers. Therefore, accepted objectivity is a relative concept that can change depending on the interpretation and evaluation of readers. Even if an article is written based on facts, if readers do not trust it, it is difficult to say that the article has achieved accepted objectivity. In this sense, objectivity is not achieved solely through the unilateral efforts of the media, but rather through interaction with readers.
Although the objectivity of the media is discussed on various levels, in reality, these ideal standards are often shaken.
In particular, the issue of “distinguishing between facts and opinions” that arises in the process of writing articles is the most sensitive area in achieving objectivity. The media often claims that objectivity can be maintained by separating the two under the premise that “facts are facts and opinions are opinions.” However, the problem lies in the fact that the “facts” themselves are already the result of choices. A single event consists of numerous facts. The media must decide which facts to focus on in its reporting. From the moment of selection, the possibility of bias arises. For example, in a complex social conflict situation, readers may get completely different impressions depending on which quotes are selected and which sources are used. This is clearly a process of selecting facts, but at the same time, it is an act of projecting a particular point of view. Not only that, but the language used in articles often contains evaluative implications under the guise of neutrality.
For example, the expression “strongly criticized” contains a much stronger evaluation than simply “criticized.” Such euphemistic expressions may appear neutral at first glance, but they are in fact rhetoric that naturally reflects the reporter’s point of view. Readers form specific perceptions through these expressions, and as a result, the direction of the news also flows in a certain direction.
The media often answers the question “What is important?” on its own and determines the direction of its reporting accordingly. In this process, when certain values are taken for granted, other values and perspectives are naturally excluded or downplayed. These presupposed values appear in articles without any special explanation and are perceived by readers as “self-evident.” This carries the risk of the media’s view of the world becoming fixed in a single framework.
Furthermore, articles may include personal judgments or predictions that are not based on facts. This carries the risk of presenting the reporter’s emotions, expectations, or opinions that are closer to speculation as if they were facts. Even when reporting on the same event, the media may give completely opposite assessments depending on the situation or their interests. This lack of consistency can cause readers to deeply question the objectivity of the media and weaken their trust in the media as a whole.
So why does the media exhibit these tendencies? Is it simply because they don’t know any better? Quite the contrary. The media studies community and civil society have long criticized the media for its bias and tendencies, and media companies themselves recognize this problem through their own codes of ethics. Therefore, the argument that these problems arise because the media is unaware of them is not convincing.
Rather, there is a tendency within the media to pass down such tendencies as a kind of tradition. In the past, the media advocated certain social values, took on an enlightening role, and regarded their tendencies as their “mission.” This emphasis on a particular perspective is not accidental, but may be the historically and structurally formed identity of the media.
Furthermore, today’s media can no longer survive by simply reporting to an unspecified majority. Amidst the diversification of readership and intensifying competition in the media market, the press sometimes maintains its bias as a strategic decision to retain loyal readers and secure advertising revenue. This is because reporting that encompasses all perspectives can sometimes be perceived as “ambiguous messaging” and result in the press becoming bland and losing the support of certain groups.
Ultimately, journalists themselves are also aware of the limits of objectivity within this structure and strategy. At the same time, however, they do not completely abandon the ideal of objectivity. Efforts to distinguish between facts and opinions in reporting still exist, and this is also a minimum measure to prevent the media from revealing its subjective views too blatantly.
Objectivity in the media is not simply a matter of “writing the facts.” It is a complex matter of judgment and strategy, such as what to select, how to express it, and what values to assume. Therefore, readers who consume news should not simply expect “objective media,” but should also take a critical view to read the structural conditions and context of bias hidden behind the reporting.
