The Fourth Estate: Objectivity in Political Journalism.
With 87.4% of our public registered to vote, is journalistic objectivity worth urgent discussion?
The concept of the ‘Fourth Estate’ stems etymologically back to the 1700’s. Supplementing the clergy, nobility and the commoners, the estate of the press is poignant now, some three centuries later. As inclusion within a quartet of estates would suggest, the profession of Journalism has fantastic powers of persuasion, especially regarding political reporting. If I told you that 45,775,800 of the UK’s 52,383,965 eligible 18+ residents are registered to vote, and that the next general election is scarcely two weeks away, could I more easily persuade you of the urgency of the matter? Journalists have to cover what is relevant to us at a particular given time, but is how they report a story equally as important as what they report? We all expect impartial ‘to the point’ journalism, but is that what we get?
“…principles of truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness, and public accountability…” — International Federation of Journalists
These are the attributes by which journalists swear. And yet, a single story can be reported x number of ways, each leaning at a slightly different angle towards a particular side of the aisle. Given, then, the presence that mainstream media imposes upon the public, and the importance that their advocacy regarding particular topics holds, how much of an obligation to remain impartial should they have? Or, should it fall on the reader to adequately browse the catalogues of bias to mediate their way to an informed decision?
With the current political climate circling the December 12th election like a hurricane around a tropical island, consider the framing of the following tweet reports concerning the same political discussion — accusations of anti-semitism directed at Jeremy Corbyn.
The objective story is that Jeremy Corbyn steered away from discussing the accusation of anti-semitism in favour of discussing the NHS — the topic of event.
JC4TruroFal, a pro Mr Corbyn campaigner for Truro, a largely “tory” constituency, covered the topic with overt disdain towards the
“bombard[ment]” and “bullying” on the part of the “establishment media” — JC4TruroFal.
Meanwhile, Robert Peston focussed on the severity of the accusation, juxtaposing Mr Corbyn’s supposed lack of responsibility with his endeavour to die before stopping the fight against racism.
The entity of bias is not limited to Twitter, where the nuances of objectivity are often lost in the plea to be noticed amidst a swamp of alike tweets. Consider further the following article from The Telegraph.
Highlighted in blue are the explicit biases against the Labour Party. “ramp up” suggests severity, “immediately” implies the weakness of the manifesto. Mr Corbyn appearing to “invent a new policy on the hoof” is juxtaposed with John McDonnell’s stating of an “incorrect figure” to assign incorrectness to Mr Corbyn, or lack of planning to John McDonnell, both negative implications.
Red and green epitomise the difference in tone when referring to the two sides of the aisle. The conservative leaning economist “is” one of the “country’s leading”, whereas the left leaning economists are only quoted as “world-leading”, whilst the proceeding link to satirical magazine Private Eye undermines the quote.
The article proposes to break down the Labour manifesto to its constituent particles, to pick apart any miscalculation. This in and of itself is worthwhile. I would expect this level of scrutiny for both and all political manifestos. The contention surrounds solely the objectivity and impartiality aforementioned by the International Federation of Journalists, which all three journalistic examples lack.
Again, I ask, is this impartiality urgent? I propose it is. Partiality regarding political topics has the power to steer the national vote sharply in one direction. Over one third of the eligible public did not vote in the 2015 election. However, if their sole source of ‘reliable’ content happened to be a particular media outlet — left or right leaning, it could have a stark effect.
Past Examples
Take the 2016 Referendum regarding the exit from Europe, Brexit. It, coincidentally, was the first time I was eligible to vote since turning 18 the December prior. I remember treating it with the marked vigour one would any new task they’d soon be allowed to participate in, but I, and I am sure I can speak for many young and inexperienced voters, was inexperienced, I looked for guidance and advice.
I think the hallmark testament for the entire campaign would be unanimously agreed to be the ‘Brexit Bus’, with the signature £350m funding promised for the NHS in bold on the side. I remember a lot of the news outlets touting this statistic as a salient reason for which to consider a leave vote, though I am sure many people had their own motivations for voting as they did. Although the news outlets did not create this figure, nor could — one would hope — they have any way to know that it was misleading, the presentation of the statistic as a justifier for a certain polticial viewpoint is nonetheless harmful.
“One pessimistic view of the role of numbers in news is that they are there largely for rhetorical reasons, to increase the credibility and authority of a story” Kevin McConway
The presentation of numbers as justifiers for semantics has been hailed in recent times as misguiding the reader. Did my denotation of the sheer quantity of voters in the UK as a number rather than a percentage persuade you more that the topic was worthwhile? Though my statistic was true, you may have fallen victim to false justification if it had been exaggerated.
Final thoughts, then. News outlets are not responsible for the rhetoric that politicians embody. They do not bear responsibility for misleading manifestos or distrustful promises from any political corner. They are, however, solely responsible for their semiotic encoding and editorial framing of stories, and thus any extrapolated biases drawn from such presentations. Returning full circle to public accountability, I feel that all journalistic practices need to steer back, and return to tending towards impartiality insofar as they are the Fourth Estate, people do take notice and further do trust their articles.
They are the the overwhelming mediums through which we interact with politics, and as identifying an object through a misted window yields contorted conclusions, so too does discerning right and wrong through a biased article. Whilst I think there is value in the realms of transparent, well written Op-ed’s, I also think the seemingly increasing frequency of biased subtleties within journalism is a topic worth consideration and discussion.
Be sure to follow me on Twitter for the latest political and journalism related content.
