people to become a “logic machine”—a human Dr. Spock.35
Emotional response to the world is an intrinsic part of ethics. In ethics, appeals to compassion and empathy can and should be part of rational arguments about ethical decisions. Moreover, the best practices of objectivity often combine partiality and impartiality. In a trial, the partiality of the prosecutor and the defense attorney (and the parties they represent) occurs within a larger impartial context— a judge or jury that subjects partial arguments to the test of objective evidence and to the impartial rules of law. Ideally, what is fair and objective emerges during a trial where partialities make their case and are judged by objective norms.
The norms of objectivity were not constructed because its creators thought most humans could be “empty” of bias. The reverse is true. The norms were constructed because of an acute awareness of human bias, because it is evident. Shallow critics of objectivity never tire of saying: “We all have biases.” Rather than conclude that objectivity is impossible because bias is universal, scientists, journalists, and others concluded the opposite: we biased humans need the discipline of objectivity to reduce the ineliminable presence of bias.
Impartiality does not require a strong neutrality or cold-blooded detachment. Impartiality is part of the stance of a person—professor, judge, journalist—who is active and engaged. Impartiality does not mean that one has no partialities. It does not mean that one does not feel the tug of one’s own biases and interests. It does not mean one must withdraw from agency, detached like the neutral gear in my car. It does not require that one can never express a judgment, conclusion, or perspective. What impartiality demands is that a person is willing and capable of not letting their partialities unduly bias their judgment. In my view, the best way to ensure one’s partialities are not biasing one’s thinking is to adopt the stance and standards of pragmatic objectivity. Genuine inquiry derives from an impartial search for the truth, “regardless of what the color of that truth may be.”36
The best journalism is a judicious blend of two fundamental impulses: the emotion-laden romantic impulse and the logic-directed objective impulse. The romantic impulse consists of the passion for interesting stories and substantial revelations. It is the impulse to seek out stories that give the journalist an opportunity for creative writing, interpretation, and self-expression. The objective impulse is the concern to verify what the romantic impulse finds.
Conclusion: Duties for Democratic Journalism
The nature of the global media sphere entails that democratically engaged journalism should take on a number of tasks. Democratically engaged journalists protect egalitarian democracy by honoring at least four duties:
1 to advance democratic dialog across racial and economic divides;
2 to explain and defend pluralistic liberal democracy against its foes;
3 to act as a watchdog for the public against extreme or intolerant media;
4 to develop guidelines for covering democracy-weakening trends.
Let us delve a little deeper into each of the four duties.
Duty 1: Dialog across divides
Journalists have a duty to convene public fora and provide channels of information that allow for frank but respectful dialog across divisions. They should seek to mend the tears in the fabric of the body politic. They should work against the trend where confrontation replaces reasonable discussion; and fear of the “other” replaces an openness to humanity. Dialogic journalism challenges racial and ethnic stereotypes and policies, e.g., investigating the factual basis of new and strident immigration laws. It means opposing the penchant to demonize. It means exposing the perpetrators and supporters of hate speech. Whether a dialog occurs depends not only on the speakers but on the manner in which their encounter in the media is structured. A heavy ethical burden lies on the shoulders of media producers, editors, and hosts to design dialogic encounters on their programs and online fora. We are all too familiar with the provocative “journalists” who seek ratings through disrespectful ranting and heated confrontation with guests. But we also have good dialogic examples on public television where viewpoints are critiqued on the basis of facts, not on the basis of the ethnicity or the personal details of the speaker.
Duty 2: Go deep politically
However, fostering the right sort of democracy-building conversations is not enough.
Conversations need to be well-informed. Here is where the second duty arises. Journalism needs to devote major resources to an explanatory journalism that delves deeply into the political values, processes, and institutions of egalitarian democracy, while challenging the myths and fears surrounding issues such as immigration, terrorism, and so on. There is a movement toward fact-checking websites. It is a good idea but insufficient. It is not enough to know that a politician made an inaccurate statement. Many citizens need a re-education in liberal democracy. They will be called on to judge issues that depend on civic knowledge. A democracy without a firm grasp on its principles is flying blind.
Duty 3: Watchdog for extremism
Journalists, in league with democratic civic groups, should help society detox the public sphere by fostering education on the nature of today’s media sphere, the difference between reliable and unreliable media, and the norms that all of us should honor when we use our media devices. In particular, it would advance understanding of the nature and history of extremism and anti-democratic groups, and their strategies. This would be a development of media literacy across society. Also, journalists should monitor the online news world and help citizens become aware of extreme media operators.
Duty 4: Guidelines on extremism
Within journalism ethics, journalists should continue to work on specific guidelines that help them become aware of the totalitarian and intolerant aspects of emerging groups and political leaders. These guidelines could range from general “indexes” for identifying extremists or totalitarian leaders in one’s own democracy to more specific guidelines on how to cover leaders who indulge in hate speech and conspiracy theory.37
In the end, democratically engaged journalists should have the courage to oppose intolerant groups that threaten egalitarian democracy, and not shrink from characterizing a leader as a liar or a totalitarian, where the facts warrant. When such leaders are not opposed or revealed for what they are, a neutral, disengaged journalism only smooths the path to their rise in power. In the face of such dangers, democratically engaged journalists have an ethical right to be prickly, non-neutral, and engaged.
References
1 Batsell, J. (2015). Engaged Journalism: Connecting with Digitally Empowered News Audiences. New York: Columbia University Press.
2 Baughman, J.L. (1987). Henry R. Luce and the Rise of the American News Media. Boston: Twayne Publishers.
3 Bell, K.M. and Cervantez, A. (forthcoming 2021). News coverage of racism, white supremacy & hate speech. In Ward, S.J.A. (Ed.). Handbook of Global Media Ethics. Amsterdam, NL: Springer.
4 Briggs, M. (2012). Entrepreneurial Journalism. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
5 Craig, D. (2011). Excellence in Online Journalism. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
6 Damasio, A. (1994). Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. New York: Penguin Books.
7 Daston, L. and Park, K. (2001). Wonders and the Order of Nature. New York: Zone Books.
8 Dewey,
