Kotaku writer Jason Schreier, in a recent conversation, asserted that objectivity ruins the truth and linked to this story to illustrate his thoughts:

http://kotaku.com/investigation-a-video-game-studio-from-hell-511872642

Schreier links to his story “Investigation: A Video Game Studio from Hell” and then says as an example of a story where objectivity would hurt the story:

“It’s an investigation into horrible practices at Trendy Entertainment—an investigation that led to their president stepping down from his role at the company. An “objective” version of that story would have stripped away most of the truth in hopes of telling a “balanced” story, giving every “side” equal weight no matter what reality actually reflected.”

Now let’s look at the piece itself. Why? Because objectivity would have “stripped away most of the truth” in hopes of telling a “balanced story” giving “every side equal weight no matter what reality activity reflected.”

First, an examination of ethics utilizing the Center for Investigative Reporting (http://cironline.org/ethics-guide).

I looked for the word “balance” and came up with this:

Balance a criminal suspect’s fair trial rights with the public’s right to be informed.

Completely unrelated. So, I looked for the word “side” and this was the most pertinent passage:

Please refrain from taking a position on stories or issues. When interviewed on TV or radio, do not take sides or express opinions. Play it straight. Be neutral. Refrain from taking any positions on politics or issues that may compromise our ability to be seen as fair and objective.

Plainly put by Alex Jones (http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reports/article/101911/An-Argument-Why-Journalists-Should-Not-Abandon-Objectivity.aspx):

I define journalistic objectivity as a genuine effort to be an honest broker when it comes to news. That means playing it straight without favoring one side when the facts are in dispute, regardless of your own views and preferences. It means doing stories that will make your friends mad when appropriate and not doing stories that are actually hit jobs or propaganda masquerading as journalism. It sometimes means doing something that probably is not done nearly enough — betraying your sources! But objectivity does not require that journalists be blank slates free of bias. In fact, objectivity is necessary precisely because they are biased.

These are both more appropriate, so we’ll use them. To me, these mean that in investigating, you should not tell the reader what you believe. Instead, the all sources speak for themselves independent of opinion. Schreier says that getting all sides in an attempt for balance would harm the story. He then says doing so would have “stripped away” the truth.

However, Schreier attempted nonetheless to be objective to some degree under the auspice of an “Investigation: A Video Game Studio from Hell”:

Trendy president Stieglitz declined to address any of the specific allegations in this story

So for Schreier to decry objectivity while he attempts to be objective in contacting Stieglitz to get his side is puzzling. Is objectivity destructive or not? Maybe it’s a bit of both? Who knows. Either way, we know that Schreier decries objectivity as harmful to the story, and he attempts to be objective to some degree in the story.

I contacted Schreier on twitter to note he’d attempted objectivity in his piece, but he stated that my concerns were fairness, not objectivity. As my master’s degree is in social work and not journalism, I originally had no reason to doubt his opinion. Then I used Google:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalistic_objectivity

Journalistic objectivity is a significant principle of journalistic professionalism. Journalistic objectivity can refer to fairness,disinterestedness, factuality, and nonpartisanship, but most often encompasses all of these qualities.

And I readily accept, even though it’s Wikipedia, the idea that objectivity and fairness are not exclusive. They are the same thing.

When reading that Schreier’s simple sentence on Stieglitz being contacted, I felt inspired that this person attempted to get me more information. They wanted me to know, so I

For others, they feel the reporting was dry, stagnant, devoid of emotion or caring. Others have different reactions and that’s OK too. None of us should have the same taste, and I no way stand opposed to editorials and reviews.

Based on what I’ve seen and heard over the course of reporting this story, “unfortunate issues” is one hell of an understatement.

When I read this, my opinion dropped. I went form respecting Schreier’s work as investigating the hardships of workers to wondering about his personal investment. This sort of outside commentary on the events taking place in the organization he’s not a part of in any way are peppered throughout.

So I fail to see how objectivity ruined Schreier’s piece. If anything, his peppering of his opinion of the events ruined the piece. The shining moments are actually those moments where he steps back, lets the sources tell us their story, and attempts to gain insight from Stieglitz and being rebuffed.

The points where the story falls flat are those moments he interjects himself with “I talked to” and “I heard from” over “Sources said.” He became part of the story. Objectivity is something that is a complete undercurrent of this piece that Schreier attempts to interject himself into multiple times as an important participant.

Except Jason Schreier is not the story. His opinion is not the story. Who he talked to is not the story. The story is Trendy Entertainment’s problems when Stieglitz was president.

And that’s why we need, when investigating news, for the reporter to step back and let the sources speak. Their voices are much more important than the opinions, ideas, or involvement of the reporter or writer.

So let’s get to the true heart of the matter: postmodernism. Most of the debate for or against objectivity hinges upon postmodern thought which dictates that truths are relative. It’s a dilemma that has been an undertow of journalism for the 90s and 00s:

http://hightalk.net/2010/04/05/the-age-of-post-modern-journalism/

http://pol-check.blogspot.com/2011/12/bbc-guide-to-post-modern-journalism.html

In fact, this has given birth to the literary narrative journalism movement which highly personalizes news based upon the writer’s experiences which is kindly called Gonzo Journalism.

But as some postmodernists believe, such as in the last piece from the BBC state, impartiality reinforces evil as it never shines the light on the nature of social injustice or wrongs. Instead, it reports them as coldly as one would write some obituaries. Someone lived, someone died, and they were loved.

The problem with this?

Post-modernism is, for many of us, meant to be tool or warning. We are to forever be mindful of our biases that we bring, disclose them, and worth in an ethical manner. Gonzo journalism states outright that there is no ethical manner. There’s just our manner.

This point of view allows for the writer to participate actively in the process through which their subject is engaged. On the positive side, it means that enthusiasts can become press. You can love games and cover them. You can enjoy music and report on it.

Gonzo journalists become part of the news. They invest in it, they drive it, and in many ways help create it. When the news happens, they then report on it in a manner that appears journalistic. This should sound familiar as behavior shown by Leigh Alexander for one example. She drives the news, creates the news, engages the news, and then writes about it in a fashion that becomes acceptable journalism later.

The way to address Gonzo journalism at its worse?

Strong, unerring, enforced ethics that require more than reporting one’s experience as news as postmodern ethics would have us adopt (http://www.allaboutworldview.org/postmodern-ethics.htm).

Finally, on the notion of objectivity, Alex Jones again writes it well (http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reports/article/101911/An-Argument-Why-Journalists-Should-Not-Abandon-Objectivity.aspx):

But journalistic objectivity is an effort to discern a practical truth, not an abstract, perfect truth. Reporters seeking genuine objectivity search out the best truth possible from the evidence that the reporter, in good faith, can find. To discredit objectivity because it is impossible to arrive at perfect truth is akin to dismissing trial by jury because it isn’t perfect in its judgments.

So when we discuss journalistic objectivity, we are not talking about finding the absolute truth as Schreier and other postmodernists would posit. We’re asking for, as Jones put it, the best possible truth from the evidence that the reporter, in good faith, can find so readers can make the best possible decision of action without the author’s opinion substituting for news.