Journalism’s notion of objectivity is a core principle, but is also contentious in that it’s a socially constructed code which was framed to strengthen readership and profit. 

“Although some people think objectivity is the press’s natural mode, for most of American history newspapers were proudly partisan. Not until the 1920s did objectivity catch on a professional ideal,” according to Matthew Pressman, Time magazine’s contributor and assistant professor of Journalism at Seton Hall University. 

Objectivity emerged as a response, contrary to what Pressman classified as journalism’s “natural mode.” This notion also dictates good writers versus poor writers, which means the primary lens through which journalistic writing is assessed depends solely on objectivity, or stating “just the facts.” 

Fairness and being inclusive of both sides is important, as well down play on the journalist’s own biases or emotions. However, this does not mean the journalist is dispassionate, it means objectivity is the basis for refined representation of writing. 

Arundhati Roy, an author and political activist, explains there is no difference between writers and activists. “The idea of what a writer is in the world today has been reduced into a commodity,” she says. The need for distinction widened the gap between the two roles, contrary to the notion that activists and writers are unlike one another. 

Deepak Adhikari, a journalist for Al Jazeera English, considers the necessary distinction between activists and writers. “An activist tries to influence the debate whereas a journalist helps create an informed debate,” he says. 

Whether or not a particular debate is influenced, the relationship between objectivity and journalism is formulaic and therefore arbitrary. 

Formulaic writing generated more power to nonpartisan newspapers, catering to consumers rather than readers. Objectivity was motivated by the need for distinction and because prejudice became less transparent, increased readership followed. Form became more important than content, which is why the foundation for good writing today is laced with the principle of objectivity. 

The very emphasis of some details over others convey subjectivity. Although subjective writing does not guide Journalism’s focus, it can notably prompt journalists to work against their own intentions and ambitions while protecting them. 

Brent Cunningham, managing editor of Columbia Journalism Review, says objectivity “helps us makes decisions quickly- we are disinterested observers after all- and it protects us from consequences of what we write.” 

If objectivity preserves safety, it’s compelling to reflect on whether journalists’ serve writing or writing serves them and if objective writing is the equivalent of good writing. 

Objectivity is not anesthetizing as much as the reason for its legitimacy- power, which means it’s a reflection of top-down structures that maintain status quo.