Objectivity
Objectivity, as a concept of philosophy, is dependent upon the presupposition distinguishing references in the field of
epistemology regarding the
ontological status of a possible objective reality, and the state of being objective in regard to references towards whatever is considered as objective reality. Inherent to the distinction is a paradoxical notion that despite the various meanings or definitions assigned to the concept by various disciplines, schools of thought, or individual philosophers, there is ultimately a body of knowledge representative of a single
reality.
In
science, objectivity is usually considered as the result of the observance of the
scientific method by the
scientific community, including a contradictory
debate and agreements on certain
paradigms.
In
history, objectivity is to be achieved through the use of the
historical method, defined in the late 19th century and by
peer review. Taking an objective approach to an issue thus means having due regard for the known valid
evidence (relevant
facts and viewpoints) pertaining to that issue. If relevant valid evidence is denied or falsified, an objective approach is impossible.
Michel Foucault's analysis of the historical and political discourse showed that the objectivity of history has been criticized as early as 1688 during the
Glorious Revolution. This conception of the historical
discourse as a weapon used by the various subjects involved in a social conflict has been maintained by
marxism. For example,
Walter Benjamin's famous
Thesis on history distinguished a "bourgeois history", personalized by
Hegel's
Phenomenology of Spirit, from a "marxist history", which didn't give, as in Hegel's philosophy, the last word to the winner. This conception would inspire the
history from below discourse.
In
journalism, objectivity may be considered as a synonym of a
neutral point of view; in this case, it is more an
ideal of writing, since certain
subjective bias, such as
ethnocentrism, can't, by definition, be completely put aside, as
ethnologists and
sociologists observe.
Objectivity has always been a main issue in journalism, especially opposed to
yellow journalism or
media bias.
Journalistic professionalism, in particular in the U.S. tradition, has therefore accorded high importance to a neutral point of view stance, devoid of any bias or explicit positioning for or against a particular group or interest (
advocacy journalism is more common in Europe). Journalists are thus expected to record all facts without adding subjective interpretations to them. Henceforth, objectivity is here identified to
accuracy,
truthfullness,
impartiality,
fairness and public accountability.
However, the distinction between plain
facts and
interpretations, and therefore the possibility of achieving a pure objectivity and impartial perspective, has often been disputed.
Nietzsche, for example, claimed that no pure fact without interpretation could exist, while
Michel Foucault's
analysis of the historical and political discourse has opposed this purposefully subjective discourse to the supposedly objective classical juridical and philosophical discourse of
sovereignty. While
positivism thinks that plain facts could be reported as such, most modern philosophers consider today that an interpretation giving it a meaning is always necessary. (
Kant used to say that a sensible intuition without a concept is blind, while a concept without a sensible intuition is empty; thus, "facts" as received as sensible intuitions are always shaped by an abstract concept.) Henceforth, biases such as
ethnocentrism or
class biases are always included in historical and political interpretations.
Obviously, the same comment about the impossibility to clearly distinguish facts from interpretations is also valid for the
historical method. However, due to the different nature of journalism, which may be characterized as "immediate history", and historical studies, which are more scholarly and involves tight analysis of documents, the type of objectivity welcome in both disciplines differs. Furthermore, journalism often involves the transcription or rewriting of politicians or layman comments on various events, while historians dedicate themselves to describing the chain of
causality which led to a particular event. The journalistic transcription of people's comments must respect the spirit, if not the letter of them, otherwise being a clear case of fraud (truthfulness and fairness).
Beside these journalistic ideals, objectivity in journalism is obtained, as in historical studies, by the respect of a specific kind of method, in particular cross-checking sources as to never have to trust only one authority and finding
primary sources and
secondary sources.
However, this journalistic ideal of objectivity has often been criticized as impossible to achieve - a pseudo-argument since, as an ideal, it never claimed to be perfectly realized - and, more importantly, as
ideologically dissimulating very precise bias, for example class, ethnic or sexist bias.
Advocacy journalism (and also
Civic journalism or
alternative media) take an explicit and clearly defined point of view, arguing that honestly describing one's opinions allows for better objectivity at the end. Alternative media in particular argues that the supposedly objectivity standards of mainstream press serve corporate bias, as if they are usually not subjected to political
censorship, their freedom is limited by economical censorship and
media concentration.
Whatever one's personal opinions on the matter, it must be underlined that both types of journalism pretend to be the most truthful, the first one by claiming to suspend any bias as in the philosophical
epoche ("suspension of judgement"), while the later claims to be the most honest by first declaring where one stands.
In decisions affecting large numbers of people (such as in politics) ignoring relevant evidence or alternative interpretations could lead to policies which, although perhaps well-intentioned, have the opposite effect of what was really intended. In this context, it is often argued that although
democracy might hamper swift, decisive action, it is nevertheless the best guarantee that all relevant facts and interpretations are included in the decision-making process, resulting in policies with greater long-term benefit.
Taking an objective approach often contrasts with
arguments from authority, where it is argued that X is true because an authority Y says so. The presumption is that Y is an authority capable of taking the most objective approach. But it may be necessary to evaluate the view of Y against other authorities likewise claiming to take an objective approach. This is an important aspect of academic
scholarly method in the modern sense.
Some
Marxist authors, such as
Georg Lukacs, have argued that true objectivity is in fact achieved only by
dialectical materialism, which would be the only science to have a perspective on the totality of the historical process. Beyond the polemical intent in criticizing bourgeois science, Lukacs' famous book,
History and Class Consciousness (1923) was a powerful
critique of Kant's
Critiques and of his "bourgeois conception of science", which induced an unbridgeable gap between the subject and the object of knowledge, and thus condemned reason to the knowledge of simple
phenomenons. Thus, Kant believed that ontological reality (
noumenon) could not be objectively known. Objective knowledge, according to Kant, was limited to the knowledge of phenomenons. Lukacs criticized this, considering it as an
idealist conception which set aside the social and historical process, which, according to his project of an "
ontology of the social
being", is in fact the ultimate reality.
