The emotional commitment to objective journalism

Impartiality and objectivity as bloodless norms is an absurd caricature, argues Stephen J.A. Ward in the latest issue of Media magazine, with an intro from editor David McKie     Impartiality and objectivity as bloodless norms is an absurd caricature, argues Stephen J.A. Ward in the latest issue of Media magazine.  Intro by David McKie Stephen J.A. Ward's…

Impartiality and objectivity as bloodless norms is an absurd caricature, argues Stephen J.A. Ward in the latest issue of Media magazine, with an intro from editor David McKie



Impartiality and objectivity as bloodless norms is an absurd caricature, argues Stephen J.A. Ward in the latest issue of Media magazine. 

Intro by David McKie

Stephen J.A. Ward's ethics column always gets me thinking, which is the whole point when you write about ethics and how different practices apply to journalism. With the use of arguments based on a belief that journalists have a role to foster responsible deliberation, Stephen challenges our notions of who we are as professionals and what we should strive to be. To echo the title of a book written by one of the pioneers of public journalism, Stephen's columns can lead readers to ask "What Are Journalists For?"

In this column, he makes a strong case for a form of journalism that has been discredited by many practitioners and academics: objectivity. The notion that journalism should always navigate a steady, unwavering course between the extremes of various viewpoints is one that has existed seemingly forever. In essence, objectivity has taken a bad rap as a form of stenography, simply recording the views of each side and presenting them to audiences without any value-added content. Unlike columnists, bloggers, and other opinionated scribes and broadcasters, the practitioners of objectivity have been viewed as bland, uncaring, neutral to a fault, and perhaps a tad boring.

Stephen takes issue with this characterization in a way that will make you think differently about objectivity.



By Stephen J.A. Ward for Media magazine

Often, when I speak to audiences about impartial, objective journalism, my listeners are skeptical about the very idea.

Some say that everyone has biases, so objectivity is a myth. Others voice another complaint: An impartial journalist is a bloodless eunuch. She pretends to have no feelings on the issue at hand; she is “detached” and “disinterested” – which means she is uncaring. Who wants to be that sort of person, let alone that sort of journalist? Journalistic eunuchs are strange creatures in an age of personal, multimedia journalism.

This misunderstanding ignores two central facts: First, the ideal of impartial journalism never asked journalists to be that sort of person; second, a belief in objective reporting is grounded in emotions – in an emotional commitment to the best possible journalism.

Journalism as “eros”

No one can practice impartial journalism without a deep and unwavering love of truth-seeking through evidence-based inquiry. Plato described philosophy as a form of love, an “eros” for wisdom. Similarly, impartial journalism is an “eros” for insightful, well-supported public journalism. Without this emotion, talk of impartiality has no motivating power.

Does this mean that impartiality and objectivity are biases? Yes, they are biases.

But not all biases are equal. The bias towards impartiality justifies itself by its positive impact on journalism. It is not an unquestioning bias.

Also, the bias towards impartiality is a positive bias that works against negative, distorting biases, such as wishful thinking, ignoring contrary facts, and promoting stereotypes about others.

Impartiality in journalism means: caring enough about reaching the truth to not prejudge the story before inquiry; to be willing to step back critically from one’s beliefs to learn from others; to follow all of the facts wherever they lead.

This is my notion of pragmatic objectivity in journalism. In my view, objectivity and impartiality do not require a journalist (or any professional) to have no values, no purposes, no cares; to have no opinions and to be neutral about everything.

Impartiality and objectivity as bloodless norms is an absurd caricature. How could such ideas have arisen?  It has a lot to do with how our culture often fails to think carefully about the emotions and their place in democracy.

‘Educating’ the emotions

One simplistic view is that the emotions undermine our rationality and need to be excluded from logical thinking. Another view is just the opposite: We need to trust our emotions and not be controlled by that old despot, reason.

A better view, espoused by philosopher John Dewey, avoids both extremes.

Dewey thinks that, as individuals and as a society, we need to ‘educate our emotions’ so as not be controlled by them; we need to learn to integrate our emotions and reasoning faculties to reach more satisfying levels of experience and more democratic forms of community.


On this view, our emotions and values are essential components of good reasoning and inquiry. They are part of good communal deliberation about issues. However, the right emotions, directed in the right manner, must be operating in specific situations.

For example, when it comes to democratic deliberation among different viewpoints, the best method of inquiry is not subjective ranting and unfair verbal warfare; nor do we want sloppy and wishful thinking to be dominate.

What we need is a strong emotional commitment to verification, openness to other perspectives, respectful disagreement and evidence-based claims.

In short, we need impartial and objective forms of inquiry and journalism.

Therefore, our education system and other agencies should teach citizens to wisely use their emotions to enhance democracy.

One way is to give students and citizens places where they can participate in deliberative fora.

We need to educate our emotions so that we value and enjoy deliberating in fair and impartial ways.

We need to educate our emotive habits– that is, the emotions we favor, such as anger over calmness, and how we typically respond to situations.

Whether we favor compassion or callousness, or whether we prefer to deliberate with people or shout at them, much depends on the culture and the media in which we are immersed.

This is not to deny value to the occasional burst of righteous anger or strong emotion in democratic discourse; nor is it to deny the value of expressing oneself freely.

Deliberative discussion is not tepid ‘politically correct’ discussion. Between ranting and politically correct discussion, there is lots of room for fair, inclusive and deliberative discussion among citizens.

Journalism and democratic emotions

Dewey’s view of emotions has a direct implication for the debate over what forms of journalism our democracy needs. It implies that we need journalists and journalism programs that create what I call “deliberative spaces” in opposition to the partisan commentators on radio and the intolerant bloggers online.

We need journalists who have educated their emotions so as to prefer deliberative communication; we need media spaces that allow a deliberative citizenry to exist; and we need citizens who have emotional habits that favor deliberative forms of journalism.

Impartial public journalism seeks to develop the moral character of journalists so that their love of evidence, verification, accuracy, fairness and impartiality are strong enough to motivate their inquiries.

We need to educate the emotions of journalists. John Dewey said that we evaluate our biases by seeing how they help us inquire correctly into, and deal fairly with, the substantive issues of the day.

In terms of journalism, the question becomes: Which form of journalism, overall, promotes the sort of journalism we need today – partial or impartial journalism?

I think that, for deliberative democracy, there is greater value in impartial journalism than partisan journalism, especially a partisan journalism that uses extreme emotions and polarizing discourse to inform citizens.

The claim, which I have criticized in previous columns, that democracy only needs a robust free press exaggerates the value of free speech for democracy.

So the next time you listen to the nondeliberative commentary by Rush Limbaugh or watch “talking heads” angrily attack each other on TV, ask yourself this: Are we, as a society, training ourselves to emotionally accept (and support) such displays of emotion?

In my estimation, angry, non-deliberative voices are non-democratic voices.

The fact that they enjoy free speech as individuals does not make them democrats as citizens.So where, I ask you, do we find today the deliberative media spaces that we need? Is our culture increasingly nondeliberative in its media and in its broader values?

Our hope for deliberative democracy depends, in the long run, on what social habits of discussion we foster in schools, in public meetings, in institutions, and in our newsrooms.

Stephen J. A. Ward is the director of the Center for Journalism Ethics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s School of Journalism and Mass Communications.

This column was originally published in the latest issue of the Canadian Association of Journalists' Media magazine and has been reprinted here with permission.