Objectivity, as something to be aspired to, was borrowed by journalists from scientists. Until recently, most scientists considered the validity of a scientific experiment, and its subsequent write-up, to depend on the researcher’s objectivity and detachment from the research subjects.

It is thought that through the researcher’s objectivity, he or she can claim credibility. The same type of logic permeated into journalism.

However, recently, certain departmenets in academia have pointed out the flaws in this system and calim that objectivity cannot really exist.

Instead, the researcher has a responsability to inform his/her audience of his bias and then let the audience judge if the results are still valid. This approach also opens up the discourse for criticism and facilitates further experiements on the same research matter in order to attempt to prove or disprove the original researcher’s theory.

In order for modern journalists to be able to claim any kind of authroity and credibibitly they need to be brave enough to state their biases and then continue reporting as ususal. The audience will then have all the necessary tools to judge what they report on themselves