I. Introduction This master’s thesis represents study of female newspaper and magazine editors in Azerbaijan based on Western and Soviet definitions of journalism with explanation of local national features of this p

I.2.2. Western vs. Soviet Objectivity

Unquestionably, the real core value of the Western professional journalism is constituted in strive for objectivity. Journalism objectivity as a value emerged in the United States in the late nineteenth century in reaction to tackle “sensationalistic excesses and the blunt commercialism of yellow journalism in the 1890”. (Hentoff 2006) The all reforming positivism also had its influence in driving journalists to accept objectivity as a professional standard since objective reporting made their vocation more respectable and socially responsible. The reforming impetus of progressivism also spurred journalists to detach themselves from crass circulation battles and fight for social enlightenment. Michael Schudson, in Discovering the News (1978), argues that professionalism was a way to strive for more objective reporting. While in Dan Schiller’s view (1979) acceptance of objectivity as journalistic value helped commercial newspapers acquire legitimacy in the eyes of society as watchdogs of the public good. This is the key to understanding Denis McQuail (1999) when he notes on objectivity: „media outlets are expected to comply with certain standards in the process of creation of media products. One of the key standards is the quality of information distributed by media (McQuail 1999).

Even though objective journalism became means for journalists to gain autonomy on pressures of business and political instrumentalization, yet the objectivity immediately came under attack of critics. While some scholars like Walter Lipman envisioned that objectivity will dwarf autonomy restrictions and make news a „precise in proportion to the precision with which the event is recorded,“ others notably Jon Katz (1997) or David Paletz and Robert Entman argued that objective journalism is an oxymoron and media’s objectivity is a method of control by business management over journalists that flattens in grayness of standardization news content and protects the status quo. In their perception media practice is corrupted with „consensus values and elite perceptions“ that cause media to swing opinion when necessary and „bend in conformity“.

Journalists work in bureaucratic organizations characterized by hierarchy, division of labor and routinization of working operations through relatively standardized rules and procedures...The purpose is efficiency in the gathering, describing and transmitting news... The result: packs and reliance on official sources.

However, some go even farther in their skepticism. Douglas Birkhead (1986) argues that journalists are not professionals in the true meaning of this word since they do not posses distinctive professional ethics that separates them from needs of their employers. In other words, as long as journalists adhere to objective reporting and maintain neutral view of events, they keep their professional integrity. However, since stances of their „objective“ reporting overlap with stances of corporate world the last ones in fact substitute journalistic and are hailed as the profession’s goals and values.

Somewhat paradoxically, but this critique coincides with the critique imposed on the Western concept by the Soviet journalism school that so brightly was illustrated in the joke at the end of the previous chapter. Feeling the gaps in the objectivity concept practitioners of objective journalism avoid to be trapped in the philosophical abyss of debates on means and values of objectivity and rather concentrate on methods of achieving it in practice. (Valiyev 2008)

Their goal is to eliminate biases that journalists bring to reporting by separation of facts from opinion. Thus, proponents of objectivity believe, that if the news reporting is based upon facts that can be verified it will lead to an objective coverage.

The byproduct that rose from the debate became trend when journalists in an effort to plug up the holes in objectivity theory were encouraged to separate in their work facts from opinion. The movement’s incentive was best expressed by Lipman (1972) who stated, “penultimately, it was hoped that the extraction of reporter biases would yield a more pure form of news reporting based singularly on facts -not absolute facts, but verified, consensual facts”. The move lead to evolution of scholar thought and blossomed into the solid conceptual framework [see table 2] on objectivity based on Jorgen Westerstahl’s (1983) research of how Swedish public broadcasting met its legal obligations of impartiality. (McQuail 1999: 196) Subsequent theory proposed that besides factuality, objectivity furthermore depends on an impartial presentation of obtained information. (Valiyev 2008)

Thus, Westerstahl’s objectivity model served for many media professionals as a way out from philosophical dead-end and translated objectivity into practical technique that served etalon for fair and factual reporting. This model of objectivity demands journalist to gather as many facts as possible before drawing any conclusions, verify the spelling of all names; understand the information to be reported; avoiding unwarranted assumptions; place the story in the most relevant context; and consistently seek statements from all relevant parties in a story (Metzler 1979). Obedience to these procedures allows masses to trust media on the basis of belief in media’s objective reporting. (McQuail, 1983:146) Judith Lichtenberg (1996: 225) in this matter notes that she believes that objectivity, assuming that it entwines with such core journalistic values as truth, fairness, neutrality, and the absence of value judgment objectivity – is the cornerstone of the professional ideology of journalists in liberal democracies.