Journalistic objectivity

Some argue that a more appropriate standard should be fairness and accuracy (as enshrined in the names of groups like Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting). Under this standard, taking sides on an issue would be permitted as long as the side taken was accurate and the other side was given a fair chance to respond. Many professionals believe that true objectivity in journalism is not possible and reporters must seek balance in their stories (giving all sides their respective points of view), which fosters fairness.


Brent Cunningham suggests that reporters should understand their inevitable biases, so they can explore what the accepted narratives may be, and then work against these as much as possible.^[23] He points out that "[w]e need deep reporting and real understanding, but we also need reporters to acknowledge all that they don't know, and not try to mask that shortcoming behind a gloss of attitude, or drown it in a roar of oversimplified assertions".^[23]


Cunningham suggests the following to solve the apparent controversies of objectivity:^[23]


In the words of another scholar, Faina (2012) suggests that modern journalists may function as "sensemakers" within the shifting contemporary journalistic environment.^[38]


Notable departures from objective news work also include the muckraking of Ida Tarbell and Lincoln Steffens,^[39][40] the New Journalism of Tom Wolfe,^[41] the underground press of the 1960s, and public journalism.^[38][42]


For news related to conflict, peace journalism may provide an alternative by introducing "insights" of social "science" into the journalism field, specifically through disciplines such as conflict theories, conflict resolution, peace research and social psychology. The application of this "empirical" "research" to the reporting of conflict may thus replace the "unacknowledged" conventions (see above) which govern the "non-scientific" practices of 'objectivity' of journalism.

Recently, many scholars and journalists have increasingly become attuned to the shifts occurring within the newspaper industry, and general upheaval of the journalistic environment, as it adjusts to the new digital era of the 21st century.^[43] In the face of this, the practice of crowdfunding is increasingly being utilized by journalists to fund independent and/or alternative projects,^[43] establishing it as another relevant alternative practice to consider in the discussion of journalistic objectivity. Crowdfunding allows journalists to pursue stories of interest to them or that otherwise may not be covered adequately for a number of reasons.^[43] Crowdfunding supports journalists by funding necessary components like reporting equipment, computers, travel expenses if necessary, and overhead costs like office space or paying other staff on their team.^[43] A key component of crowdfunding and a significant motivator for journalists to use it is the lack of corporate backing.^[43] This means that the journalist has the autonomy to make editorial decisions at their sole discrection but there is equally no financial support.


According to a study conducted by Hunter (2014), journalists engaged in a crowdfunding campaign all held a similar opinion that their funders did not have control over the content and that it was the journalist who maintained ultimate jurisdiction.^[43] However, this pronouncement was complicated by the sense of accountability or responsibility incited in journalists towards their funders.^[43] Hunter (2014) notes that this may have the effect of creating a power imbalance between funders and the journalist, as journalists want to maintain editorial control, but it is in fact the funders that decide whether the project will be a success or not.^[43]


To combat this, Hunter (2014) proposes the following strategies that journalists may employ to maintain a more objective approach if desired:^[43]


The type of relationship and potential pressures the journalist may feel depends on the type of investor with whom they are working, as there are passive and active investors. Passive investors will not be involved beyond making a donation on the crowdfunding platform, leaving everything up to the discretion of the journalist.^[43] In contrast, active investors have a more active role in the production of the journalistic piece, which can take various forms that may include the investor providing feedback or ideas as well as receiving early copies of the work prior to its public release.^[43]


Some journalists from the study firmly held the opinion that impartial accounts and a detached, namely "objective", reporting style should continue to govern, even within a crowdfunding context.^[43] Others, however, advocated that point-of-view journalism and accurate reporting are not mutually exclusive ideals, and thus journalists still may ascribe to quality factual reporting, sans the traditional practices or understanding of objectivity.^[43]


The study on crowdfunding done by Hunter (2014) showed that audiences are keen to fund projects with a specific point of view or pieces of advocacy journalism.^[43] Journalists are often using crowdfunding to pursue stories with a point-of-view that large corporations do not pursue adequately.^[43] The journalist explains the goal of the work they are trying to pursue and what resources are needed for it on crowdfunding platforms. Based on this information, funders decide to contribute or not.^[43] The desire or acceptance of opinionated journalism is especially clear with passive investors because they donate based on the journalist's pitch and let the journalist produce what they want. They essentially just want to support the journalist as an individual and allow them the freedom to pursue the project.