Objectivity in the Age of Algorithmic Media: An Attainable Goal or an Unachievable Dream?
Before social media platforms were created, decisions regarding editorial content were made by experts based on what they believed was true, timely and necessary for the public to know in order to be able to act like informed citizens in a democracy (Ward, 2008). Thus, the content of the news in legacy media depended entirely on the choices made by human who used their principles and their values to serve the interests of their publics (Lee, 2016). In contrast, nowadays most editorial decision making is in the hands of algorithms which run their procedures independent on human action (Gillespie, 2014). These algorithms are programed by humans to take into consideration a usually unknown to the public set of criteria when judging what news pieces are worthy to be presented to a certain public which can be comprised of a single individual, as in the case of Facebook News Feed which are personalized for every user (Lee, 2016). The development of algorithmic media creates a lot of challenges for the principle of objectivity in journalism. In brief, objectivity in the journalist profession results from three related principles: news reports have to be based on facts that can be tested, these facts have to be gathered according to certain professional standards, and the presentation of these facts has to be balanced (Ward, 2008). In an open and democratic society, journalistic objectivity is important because it ensures that the citizens have access to truthful information which allows them to make elections choices and to participate to public debates in an effective way (Lee, 2016). However, algorithmic media challenges all of the principles of journalistic objectivity through many ways and especially by allowing fake news to be spread (Gillespie, 2014), and also by spreading news content without taking into consideration if it is produced by a respectable news organization or by a an individual who does not follow the journalistic deontology (Thompson & Volgestein, 2018) and by favouring news pieces which promote views that “serve to divide individuals, instead of uniting them through common concerns” (Caplan & Boyd, 2016, p. 3).
dThe quest for objectivity has long been seen as the Holy Grail of the journalist profession, and many critics argue that even legacy media have often failed to follow this principle to gain more readers and supporters at the expense of news quality (Ward, 2008). However, legacy media have strived and continue to strive in order to build structures that would ensure that objectivity would remain one of the main principles followed by professional journalists: they have established professional codes of conduct, they have wanted to achieve ways to escape the tyranny of patrons and governments in order to be able to maintain their neutrality (Ward, 2008) and they have continuously listened to the feedback received from their readers in orer to improve the way in which they present the news (Thompson & Volgestein, 2018). For many, the rise of search engines and social media was regarded as an innovative means to ensure even further objectivity of the media (Caplan & Boyd, 2016). In fact, the employment of algorithms that in fact would not involve the subjective decision making of news editors, was seen by many as a step towards greater objectivity (Lotan, 2013). The news curated by algorithms was thought to be more balanced and more relevant to the reader because it was based on the readers’ preferences and on what is similar readers (Thompson & Volgestein, 2018) or on what sources of reputation had already considered as worthy information (Gillespie, 2014). However, this “techno-optimism” (Thompson & Volgestein, 2018) was soon replaced by the realization that algorithmically curated news is ,in fact a threat not only to news objectivity, but also to society and democracy (Lee, 2016). Numerous studies have shown that news pieces picked through algorithms are usually sensational pieces that lead to a direct emotional response from the reader instead of informative pieces that would allow the reader to form a balanced opinion on current events (Gillespie, 2014). This is evident in the way in which Facebook News Feed, through its emphasis on user engagement (the number of likes, shares, comments etc.), allows the spread of fake news easily at the expense of news pieces produced by reputable sources (Caplan & Boyd, 2016). This was obvious in the recent scandal involving the manipulation of US election results by Russian “troll farms” spread propaganda through paid ads on Facebook in an effort to affect the elections in favor of Donald Trump (Thompson & Volgestein, 2018).
In light of this, it can be concluded that algorithmic media have managed to undermine the principles of journalistic objectivity and have raised serious questions about the role played by media in a democracy by showing the weakness of their system and that they easily can be manipulated by those who have enough knowledge of the system and enough resources to produce viral and hurtful content and news. However, all is not lost in the case of algorithmic media and there are ways to attain what Gillespie (2014) calls “algorithmic objectivity” by following the insights provided by Ward (2008) in his discussion of “pragmatic objectivity”. Social media companies can minimize the risk of using algorithms for news curation by accepting the fact that they are news editors, not mere platforms (Lee, 2016), by accepting that all news curation is biased and ensuring that these biases are kept in check by media experts (Caplan & Boyd, 2016), and by allowing users backstage access so that they can understand how the algorithm work and how they are influencing their decisions and their opinions (Gillespie, 2014).
References
- Caplan, R., & Boyd, D. (2016, May 13). Who Controls The Public Sphere In An Era Of Algorithms?. Retrieved from: datasociety.net/pubs/ap/MediationAutomationPower_2016.pdf.
- Gillespie, T. (2014). The Relevance of Algorithms. In Gillespie, T., Boczowski, P.J., & Foot, K.A. (ed.). Media Technologies: Essays on Communication, Materiality and Society. Cambridge: MIT Press.
- Lee, T.B. (2016, November 6). Facebook Is Harming Our Democracy, And Mark Zuckerberg Needs to Do Something About It. Retrieved from: www.vox.com/new-money/2016/11/6/13509854/facebook-politics-news-bad.
- Lotan, G. (2013). Networked Audiences. In McBride, K., & Rosenstiel, T. (ed.) The New Ethics of Journalism (pp. 105–119), London: Sage.
- Thompson, N., & Vogelstein, F. (2018, February 12). Inside the Two Years That Shook Facebook- And the World. Retrieved from: www.wired.com/story/inside-facebook-mark-zuckerberg-2-years-of-hell.
- Ward, S.J.A. (2008). Truth and Objectivity. In Wilkins, L., & Christians, C.G. (Eds.) The Handbook of Media Ethics (pp. 71–83). New York and London: Routledge.
