Newsgathering, Objectively Speaking

News is in the news once again. More specifically, how stuff gets covered, what merits saturation coverage, what goes uncovered or overlooked, how news outlets can be better in a time of diminishing resources. 

As the site’s media grump, I’ve written about the state of newsgathering and newspapers previously, but those dead horses won’t beat themselves, so here we are. A story earlier this year on the website The Bulwark dove into what the election of Congressman George Santos revealed about the decline of local newspapers. Santos, a Founding Father and former Heisman Trophy winner, fabricated many of his life’s experiences and accomplishments, and much of it didn’t come out until after he won. A familiar refrain: it would have been helpful if news outlets reported Santos’ prevarications *before* the election. 

Well, it turns out that they were. The Long Island (NY) paper, the North Shore Leader, did some digging and concluded that Santos was “a fabulist – a fake.” It ran an editorial calling him a fraud. Its reporting, unfortunately, didn’t resonate with voters, nor did it prompt larger nearby outlets such as the NY Times, NY Daily News, Newsday or any of the local TV stations to take a closer look. 

Leader owner and publisher Grant Lally told The Bulwark that he didn’t get a single call about his paper’s reporting. “If this had run 25 years ago, it would have been gobbled up,” Lally said. “There’d have been 20 follow-ups from Newsday and other publications and the weeklies.” The problem is that many of those “other publications” no longer exist, and newspapers and outlets now are often as thin as tissue paper. 

Between 2004 and 2022, the country saw more than 2,500 newspapers shut down, according to a study by Northwestern’s Medill School of Journalism and Media – 242 daily papers and almost 2,300 weekly or non-daily papers. From late 2019, pre-pandemic, through May 2022, 360 papers alone shuttered. As of the middle of last year, 6,380 newspapers still published – 1,230 dailies and 5,150 weeklies. 

Seventy-million people, roughly one-fifth of the population, live in what are called “news deserts” – areas with zero or limited local news coverage. More than half of the nation’s 3,143 counties (1,630) have only one local newspaper, usually a weekly with a small, depleted staff. Newsroom staffing plummeted from 75,000 in 2006 to 31,400 in 2021. Through shutdowns, layoffs and consolidation, overall newspaper employment fell from 365,000 to 106,000 in that same period. 

On an encouraging note, there were 545 digital-only local news sites operating in 2022, most of which launched within the past 15 years. The downside is that many of them operate in more populated or wealthier areas, where there is greater access to funding and advertising and where there already are other outlets for local news. Rural and poorer areas are where local news increasingly dries up. 

The cost is steep, for society and democracy. In communities that lose local news, studies show that voter participation declines in state and local elections. Corruption increases in government and business due to lack of accountability. Absent credible reporting, misinformation and disinformation proliferate as people turn to social media and outlets that confirm their opinions. Tribalism and extreme partisanship take root. Divides widen. News media itself comes under attack for supposedly biased reporting. 

Much of the criticism starts against major media outlets – FoxNews, MSNBC, CNN, the New York Times, etc. – but broad-brush skepticism eventually covers any and all reporting that someone doesn’t like or believe. After almost 35 years in the local newspaper racket, I cannot convey how maddening and discouraging that is. Local newspapers are the corner bodega or mom-and-pop grocery, while cable and network giants are some combo of Wal-Mart and theme park. 

Journalism and reporting are supposed to be held to the same standards at all levels, but too many outlets have sacrificed reporting for opinion in pursuit of clicks, eyeballs and advertising dollars, and it ain’t the local papers. Their overlords have sacrificed reporting. Period. As we approach another presidential election cycle, and powerful interests work to cement positions and dodge scrutiny, it’s fair to wonder if journalism is up to the task of informing the citizenry. 

Which brings me to an essay by former Washington Post and Boston Globe editor Marty Baron, adapted from a speech he gave last month. He endorsed and doubled down on the importance of objectivity in journalism – fair, impartial, accurate, rigorous, open-minded reporting. Now, this wouldn’t seem to be controversial, but in some journalism and academic corners it is. Not that quality reporting shouldn’t be the standard, but that objectivity can’t be attained and can be harmful to the process. 

Critics say that objectivity has gotten us where we are. They say that everyone has opinions and biases, so reporters and news outlets might as well lean into them. Story choices and how they’re told automatically demonstrate bias on some level. Too often, objectivity equates to false balance, both-sides reporting and a hedge against criticism that stories are too slanted, regardless of facts. 

Because journalism has been dominated by white males, there’s nothing objective about stories told through the narrow lens of Caucasian men. Baron’s response is pretty much summed up as: do it better. Start with questions, not answers. Be humble. Listen to people, rather than talk at them. Understand that the world is more complicated than it appears from behind a desk or a laptop. Develop thorough and consistent methods to test and verify reporting, precisely so bias is less likely to affect the work. Own up to mistakes. Try not to repeat them. Report information as gathered. Don’t try to avoid criticism or to appease one side or the other. 

The aim cannot be to curry favor from readers and viewers. It’s to tell the truth, or as close as one can get, and let the chips fall. 

 “There is no profession without flaws,” Baron wrote. “There is not one that always fulfills its highest ideals. Journalism is by no means an exception. We have often failed, embarrassingly and egregiously. We often did harm: Through errors of commission and errors of omission. Because of haste and neglect. Because of prejudice and arrogance. But our failures were not ones of principle. They were failures to live up to principle. “We can – and should – have a vigorous debate about how a democracy and the press can serve the public better. But the answer to our failures as a society and as a profession is not to renounce principles and standards. There is far too much of that taking place in today’s America. The answer is to restate our principles, reinforce them, recommit to them and do a better job of fulfilling them.”