The Fetish of Objectivity

One of the most treacherous journalistic cliches is that a news story should always "let the facts speak for themselves." Thoughtful newsmen know that the facts alone seldom can, that they speak clearly only when they are told in proper order and perspective--and thus interpreted--by an honest journalist. Nevertheless, many a U.S. editor still damns interpretive reporting and sticks to his fetish of "objectivity," though the briefest item in his newspaper may, in fact, be interpretive reporting. Last week Palmer Hoyt's Denver Post thought it time to read such editors a lecture on the facts of journalistic life. Said the Post:

"For more than 100 years, most American newspapers mixed news, the interpretation of news and the opinions of their editors and writers throughout most of the material that they printed. The newsman of those days was a sort of essayist . . . Gradually editors swung around to a new theory: 'Let's keep our news columns factual and objective . . .' The reporter was told his first paragraph . . . should tell the 'who, what, when, where and why' --and no more.

"The pure factual objectivity which most newspapers have sought has often been a will-o'-the-wisp . . . For example, few news articles worth reading can be shorn of all adjectives. Yet whenever a reporter writes of the 'beautiful' Rita Hayworth, 'scowling' John L. Lewis, 'Millionaire' Charles E. Wilson or 'Red-hunt ing' Joe McCarthy, he is influencing the reaction of readers in a somewhat nonobjective way, even though he can defend his choice of words with undisputed proof. Honest newspapermen will admit, also, that they unavoidably influence reader reaction by [the placement of] articles . . . The mere fact that an article is on page 1 is an unobjective admission that the editors consider it important . . .

"The plan of printing only 'straight facts' in the news columns and only opinion on the editorial pages leaves a twilight zone of 'news interpretation' untouched by the newspaper . . . Newspapers should continue to strive for as much objectivity as possible, but should have no taboos against 'interpretation' when [it] is necessary to an understanding of any happening . . . The trend will be toward more 'interpretation . . .' Who, what, where, when and why no longer answer ail the questions. 'What does it mean?' is an important question that newspapers will try, increasingly, to answer."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.