Objectivity for the Reporter, the Essayist, the Blogger and the Storyteller

In the course of a recent correspondence, I have had occasion to think seriously about the standards of objectivity that apply to different types of writing. Quite obviously, they are not all the same. Whatever it is you are writing and, to a great extent, whomever you think you are writing it for will have a considerable bearing on the degree of objectivity you need to use.

The Reporter

If you are writing a piece as a reporter, you are very restricted as to what you may say, especially insofar as your material falls outside the bounds of factual information. If you wish to consider yourself a reporter with integrity, then you have a further obligation to include all the pertinent facts of a given story, whether they reinforce or undermine your private opinion. To that end, you must make a serious and sincere effort to research all sides of the story.

Understand, when I write about your obligation as a writer, I am generally not referring to matters of legality. There are libel laws, which I will get into later, but, for the most part, you enjoy the freedom of speech that prevails in most democracies. Your obligation, in the long run, is to yourself. If you want to be read and have your writing appreciated for what it is, you need to maintain the proper standards.

As prime examples of this notion, neither Keith Obermann nor Rush Limbaugh are considered serious journalists by a great many people of independent mind. That is because they are perceived as making no effort to and having no interest in truthfully examining the other side of whatever story they are "reporting." Has either of them been thrown in jail for inflammatory speech? No, of course not, but they do pay a price for their stridency, even if they are probably quite wealthy in terms of money.

Of course it is always possible to "slant" the news. The Washington Post, on one hand, and The Wall Street Journal, on the other, are likely to have two different "takes" on the same news item, but neither paper, if it wishes to maintain its position in the world of responsible journalism, will allow itself to go too far overboard. The Post, for example, could not be excused from reporting the endless shenanigans of D.C. Mayor Marion Barry, even after they endorsed his initial candidacy. By the same token, the Journal was obligated to report the facts of financier Bernie Madoff's grand larceny.

Yes, there is such a thing as what a candidate in the 2008 election called "gotcha journalism," but it is not what that individual thought it was: legitimate fact-seeking. What I have in mind is more along the lines of a spoof-and, mind you, this is a spoof-my brother once did of Mike Wallace trying to interview jazz musician Count Basie for 60 Minutes:

"Now, Count, if that is, in fact, your true title, let me get this straight: you take these people's cash and, in return, you give them noise?"

It is the type of so-called journalism that asks the question, "Have you stopped beating your wife," and, when the no-win answer is not forthcoming, follows up with "The alleged wife-beater refused to return our calls."

The bottom line, especially for those starting out in the trade, is that no self-respecting periodical will be interested in accepting your work if you cannot cover stories with a strict degree of objectivity. The same goes for a great many websites.

The Essayist

Okay, here is the major difference between the essayist and the reporter: the reporter must tell the story as exactly as possible and stick to the facts; the essayist, on the other hand, is entitled to an opinion. In fact, most essays, in one way or another, are opinion pieces. The editorials in your newspaper are, in essence, short essays.

We should keep in mind that the essay covers quite a wide range of styles, and not all of them need to seek the truth or even attempt to. That is particularly true in the case of a humorous essay, such as the several that Mark Twain wrote throughout his career. Consider one of his best-known essays on the subject of James Fenimore Cooper. If you are not familiar with the piece, here it is, courtesy of Project Gutenberg . Another example of the humorous essay that makes a mockery of the truth might be this effort on the subject of correspondence , written some time ago by your humble narrator.

If we want to look at the serious essay, we can figure, for the most part, it will be an effort to sway readers' opinions. Again, the writer need not be a journalist, but he or she should convey to the potential reader a sense of fair-mindedness. To that end, demagoguery works against the writer's interest.

Let me provide an example. If I were to write an essay about the irrelevance of religious conviction in modern-day politics, I might say something like this:

Henry Kissinger, though he was a Jew, had no problem faithfully supporting the Christian president, Richard Nixon.

Here you have an opinion (the unimportance of religious persuasion) and two facts (Kissinger was a Jew; Nixon was a Christian). There is nothing, save the possible boredom of the subject matter, to keep the reader from reading on. Now suppose, instead, I were to write:

Henry Kissinger, though he was a gabardine-stroking sheeny, had no problem supporting...

You probably would have stopped reading right there, unless you harbored the same clear and obvious prejudice the author did. Note: this is strictly a hypothetical. Some of my best friends, and all that. The point is, when you make it a point to use offensive nomenclature to bolster your opinion, you move from the realm of the serious essayist to that of the blogger.

Let me make clear, it is not always the conservative writers who can and do cross this fine line. It can affect any writer of any persuasion.

Here is another example that may be a bit more germane, since, truth be to tell, I do not have a whole lot to say about Henry Kissinger. If I wanted to write a serious essay about Sarah Palin, I could legitimately say something like:

Sarah Palin is unfit to be the president of the United States.

To be sure, I would take on the serious responsibility of backing my contention up with reasons, not the least of which would be she quit her office as governor of Alaska, right in the middle of her term, for no good reason. I would, in turn, have to back that contention up with a serious examination of possible reasons and explain why they were no good. In this case, the best reason was that she was too hungry for money and publicity to be bothered with the responsibilities of office. A worse reason would be that she could not take the pressure of the job. The worst reason would be that someone who has something really serious on her may have told her, "Either you turn in the keys to the Executive Igloo or I go to the authorities."

I could and would vehemently attack her in such an essay, but without resorting to name-calling. Now suppose, instead of the above opening sentence, I were to write:

Sarah Palin is a #&*&ing idiot.

Any disinterested (as opposed to uninterested) reader would know, right from the start, that I had a dog in the race and would, rightfully, tune me out. Of course, people who strongly agree with me would get some measure of joy out of reading such an article. That is a lot of what blogs are about.

The Blogger

Please do not get the impression I am trying to say all bloggers are drooling, opinionated jerks. I am a blogger myself, and I count among my friends a great many people who consider themselves bloggers as well. The web log (blog) is a fairly new development, but it is also a most welcome way we have developed to talk to one another.

But that's essentially what a blog is: written conversation. As we all know, talk can be intelligent or stupid. It can be truthful or mendacious. It can be useful or useless. Yet, for all that, talk is better than silence. In recent times, when the tin-pot dictators of the world have sought to stifle legitimate questioning of their rights to rule, their first instinct has been to shut down electronic conversation, any way they can.

You, as a blogger, are free to say pretty much what you want and in any way you want to say it. Bear in mind, though, that you are subject to the same laws of the market place as the reporter and the essayist. It is up to you to write material that people will want to read, and, if you want to sway opinions, it is up to you to write in such a way that readers will take you seriously.

You are also subject to the libel laws, of course. Now I am not a lawyer, so anything I say about this will be a layman's opinion. I think I have the right idea, though.

There are two categories of potential targets for libelous information: the famous and the rest of us. You have a little more leeway writing inflammatory stuff about famous people than you do about not-so-famous people on the grounds that if someone is a "public figure," he or she should expect to be a target for vituperative observations.

If I were to write, "Lindsay Lohan is a slut," (Again, just a hypothetical. The author is taking no stand, one way or another on the question.), it is a broad enough contention that the celebrity may just have to let it pass, however unflattering it may be. On the other hand, if I were to say "Ellie May Caddidlehopper is a slut," that is a different story altogether. Who the dickens is Ellie May Caddidlehopper anyway? Someone who could sue the pants off of me, is who, even if I wrote the statement in a blog.

Celebrity or not, you cannot write truly damaging lies about anyone without facing possible legal and financial consequences. Whether someone blogs, "Barack Obama takes his orders directly from Ossama bin Laden," or "Tom Lane is a Muslim terrorist," it does not matter. Both statements are equally libelous, even if Tom Lane is a little less well-known.

The Storyteller

Storytellers write fiction, even if their fiction impacts heavily on reality. If you are telling a story, you really have to go a long, long way over the line before you run into trouble with the libel law.

I could not write something so blatant as, "Once upon a time, there was an imbecile named George W. Bush," (Yet again: a hypothetical...I suppose), without opening myself up to legal problems. On the other hand, serious storytellers like John Steinbeck (The Grapes of Wrath) and George Orwell (Animal Farm) could write eloquent attacks against targeted ideologies by making them entirely works of fiction.

Authors, such as Ken Follett, who write historical fiction are typically given a good bit of leeway in portraying the actual historical figures that must, of necessity, figure into their tales, and that is as it should be.

Sometimes you, the storyteller, may be well-advised to throw in the disclaimer that any resemblance, etc., is coincidental. If you are so advised, or if you instinctively feel that is a prudent thing to do, you should do so. It certainly is not going to mar the story you have set out to tell. And that is what you are doing, in essence: telling a story. That is a long way from turning in a news report.

I hope you will give some thought to these observations, however scant and superficial they may be, as you get ready to write your next piece for whatever medium you may choose. Are you writing as a reporter, an essayist, a blogger or a storyteller? All are honorable callings, but it is very useful indeed to know which one you are about to call upon.

Sources

Project Gutenberg

Wikipedia

Urbandictionary.com