Sustaining Democracy?: Journalism and the Politics of Objectivity

Robert Hackett

Yuezhi Zhao

Robert Hackett and Yuezhi Zhao have written a very important book which strikes at the heart of journalism: the regime of objectivity; even if they choose to largely ignore the way in which journalism has sold its soul.

Sustaining Democracy?: Journalism and the Politics of Objectivity is a solid academic work which is written in language that is accessible to practitioners and the general public. It is a crucial examination of a central topic, and it should be read by everyone involved in journalism: from audiences to professors, students, journalists, editors, and owners.

This is a richly detailed analysis of the origins of objectivity; its evolution from an emphasis on "facts" to an epistemology, a normative ideal, and an institutionalized ideological regime, reflective of established authority. The authors critique journalism and objectivity's epistemological assumptions of positivism and empiricism. They also dissect the postmodernist position which denies the possibility of valid knowledge of the world, opting instead for the eminently reasonable perspective of "critical realism." They write, "We can recognize that all knowledge is constructed and nevertheless affirm the possibility of distinguishing between 'truer' and 'falser' depictions of reality--in the sense of identifying more or less coherent and comprehensive accounts" (p. 130).

There is much to agree with here and to applaud, such as the scope and breadth of the analysis and observations. There is also room for criticism: Peter Gzowsky's Morningside is no longer on CBC Radio (p. 232); Quebec press czar Pierre Peladeau died in 1997, and hence should not be among the living in a book published in 1998 (p. 62); the Council of Canadians had 105,000 members by the end of 1997, and not 60,000 as the authors state (p. 171).

But the major problem in this book is the way in which it both purports and appears to provide a thorough, balanced, and multiperspectival analysis of the factors influencing objectivity, fairness, and balance in the news: all the while it pays far too little attention to the crucial matter of ownership and critical, political economic perspectives.

This major oversight is all the more egregious as it has been pointed out previously. Silva singled out Hackett's (1991) work as "among the fullest theoretical and empirical expressions of a social constructionist perspective in the Canadian communications literature" (Silva 1995, 16). But he also noted that, "many of those who reject instrumentalism argue instead that the news is socially constructed in such a way that the news-shaping influence of owners and advertisers is virtually nil" (Silva 1995, 19). Despite its obvious strengths, Hackett and Zhao's work, and their version of social constructionism, lends credence to this criticism.

By focusing virtually exclusively on "journalism's regime of objectivity," the authors ultimately come to blame some of the prominent victims in the system, the working journalists themselves (audiences are victims as well), and resort to exhorting those journalists to do better, by engaging in "public journalism" involving "self-reflexivity" and "more open acknowledgment of journalism's intrinsic values and interests" (p. 233).
Although much of the evidence and arguments the authors bring to bear are important and relevant, as a result of their emphasis they have identified only part of the problem and few solutions.

The authors argue that "Liberal democracy" is in "crisis" from within, owing to the logical contradictions between free market capitalism and democracy (p. 165). In their view, political alienation suggests that "not only democracy but also the very governability of human society is at stake" (p. 170). How these conclusions can be reached when the hegemonic system seems to be humming along nicely, at least for some, is a mystery. Their arguments for "widespread malaise" in the public due to the gender gap and market-liberal economic policies, are unconvincing: the weakest part of the book.

Meanwhile, despite the central role of "democracy" in the book, Sustaining Democracy?: Journalism and the Politics of Objectivity ignores the very real shortcomings in our "democratic" electoral system (cf. Winter 1996) and neither refutes nor sustains nor even mentions the argument that we live in a virtual autocracy. Similarly missing is Chomsky's argument that "All makes sense, however, when we take the term 'democracy' to mean domination of the economy and social and political life by domestic elements that are properly sensitive to the needs of corporations and the U.S. government" (Chomsky 1989, 108).

The book is vague about what is wrong and what needs to be changed. As mentioned above, many of the solutions seem to lie with proposals for action on the part of working journalists, despite their lack of protection from capricious managers and owners. After reading about suggested changes for journalists to make, we then read: "Most of these changes are, we admit, not likely to take place within the current system. They will more likely require new institutional forms for journalism, as well as public policy to reduce the dominance of commercial logic and corporate power within the media system" (p. 235). All well and good, but that corporate power is all but ignored in much of the text, so how do we know it is a problem? And what are the institutional forms, and the new public policies?

Earlier, the authors reassured us that, "In complex news organizations, news is no longer a one-person product. The division of labour between owners, managers, editors, reporters and columnists meant that 'enforcing a standard political line became a more difficult proposition.' Moreover, occupational norms, such as criteria of objectivity and newsworthiness, provide journalism with a cushion against owners' potential partisanship" (p. 70).

Later on, they set up a distorted and oversimplified instrumentalist political economic perspective as a straw man which is easily dismissed. "To be sure, it is far too simplistic to see media only as tools of business or government. We need a nuanced understanding of the institutional imperatives of media organizations" (p. 145). But the authors' nuanced understanding largely ignores the increasingly important role played by corporate ownership, directly and indirectly influencing news content in a plethora of ways.

This oversight is all the more flagrant at a time when (as the authors acknowledge) corporate concentration of the press has reached unprecedented levels, with financier Conrad Black controlling more than 60 of the nation's 105 dailies. What is unsaid is that Black has been installing like-minded publishers, and shifting the press dramatically to the right (see Winter 1996; Barlow and Winter 1997). A case in point is the Windsor Star: once a quality newspaper under family ownership, it deteriorated under Southam and has reached new depths under Black. Once it endorsed the NDP. Under Southam it was Liberal. Under Black, it supports the Reform Party.

One need not subscribe to political economic perspectives, but at least take them into account in a significant fashion. Research into the social construction of news which demonstrates how it has become a product of ownership and management would only strengthen the authors' position. Reference to the work by Hallin (1989) on the spheres of deviance, legitimate controversy, and consensus could be informed by reference to truisms and Media Think (Winter 1996). Authors such as Noam Chomsky (1989), or Herman and McChesney (1997) are far too significant to be ignored.
Even if, by reading another text which does include a political economic perspective, we suspect that corporate power is a problem, we still will not see that perspective reinforced here, or learn what can be done about it.

Conrad Black is sympathetically described as being "frequently demonized by his critics," when he is merely "the product of a system" (p. 8). The question is, which critics? The mainstream is rife with sycophants and apologists. As the authors say, Black himself is not the problem, but one should not dismiss or fail to examine the control he has, or fail to note that it has generated barely a whimper of audible protest.

A book that has been about five years in the making, Sustaining Democracy?: Journalism and the Politics of Objectivity has a depth and breadth one might expect, at least within the confines of its social constructionist perspective. But, it is not quite conversant with contemporary developments in the field. This is to be expected given the authors' perspective, and since these developments have just surfaced in the two years since Black consolidated his control over Southam Inc. Judging from the current discourse on the Internet list of the Canadian Association of Journalists, many practising journalists themselves are still in a state of denial about these developments, which have had little time to trickle up to the ivory tower.
But these caveats aside, one would not want to ignore the absolutely dreadful impact Conrad Black, his partners, and his accomplices are having on Canadian newsrooms, and on our prospects for "sustaining" (developing?) democracy. The authors argue that objectivity once served as a cushion between news workers and management. But the cushion is deflated and it was largely filled with hot air. I mentioned developments at the Windsor Star. One editor at a Black-owned daily boldly wrote a memo to a journalist recently, saying that she did not want a story contaminated with any "social, political, or historical" context. By that, the editor meant anything that is critical of the establishment or normative view. The new mantra at Southam is "light, bright, and right (wing)." Journalists who oppose this new regime are marginalized, demoralized, and leaving behind an industry that has been engulfed by Black's brand of "Vampire Journalism" (cf. Barlow and Winter 1997). In this sense, events have overtaken the authors of Sustaining Democracy?.

But this is what the book does not do. What it does do is extremely well done, making it an invaluable contribution to the field, despite these limitations. It is a great read, and will make an excellent textbook.

***

If Hackett and Zhao are somewhat constricted by their version of the social constructionist framework, in The End of News: How the News is Being Swamped by Information, Manipulation and Entertainment. And How This is a Threat to Open, Democratic Society, journalism professor Roger Bird is labouring under the straitjacket of a liberal-pluralist perspective. Where Hackett and Zhao choose to emphasize one particular perspective while giving nodding acknowledgment to another, Bird appears to be unaware of the vast majority of the literature in the area he is writing about. For example, the central thesis of The End of News is that the news is declining in importance, for three reasons. The first two of these are: (1) it is becoming more like entertainment and (2) due to technological changes and the information gap. The first point was made convincingly by Neil Postman in Amusing Ourselves to Death, published thirteen years ago. Bird does not mention Postman's work, other than a brief reference to a later book, Technopoly. As for the growing information gap between rich and poor, this area was studied by American Phil Tichenor and his colleagues, beginning in the 1970s, but Bird makes no reference to that research, or any of the more recent literature.

These are central examples, but not isolated ones. Elsewhere, Bird approvingly quotes Ben Bagdikian in his 1971 book, The Information Machines, where Bagdikian predicted that "more independent channels of communication to each information corporation and into each home will end the homogenizing of news that now occurs because it must be prepared for such a wide spectrum of consumers" (Bagdikian 1971, 20). But Bird ignores Bagdikian's later and more important work, The Media Monopoly, selling over 75,000 copies in five editions beginning in 1983, in which Bagdikian indicates that despite his earlier optimism, a handful of corporations have come to control the American--and world--media.
Bird's liberal-pluralist perspective is evident early on, as he tackles the question of "government and corporate" control over information and news:
Many observers suggest, however, than an often equal and healthy struggle among the sources of power and money, the news media and the people has usually resulted in enough of the right kind of news to allow the public to function in its political and economic role. Other critics argue that the news media and the major power groups in society are really indistinguishable . . . the premise on which this book operates is that the North American capitalist news media until very recently have been the worst possible way of informing the public--except for all the other methods. (p. 19)

With a brief endnote reference to Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent, Bird gets on to the business of finding support for the premise of his book. (He does return briefly to their work, in order to dismiss it as "somewhat turgid social science orthodoxy" [p. 91].)
The third central tenet of Bird's work is that "powerful groups . . . have learned to manage the news" (p. 4). Hence, it comes as a surprise that media tycoon Conrad Black is only briefly mentioned, in just a couple of places, and even then Bird gets it wrong. He writes that "Starting in 1995 with a handful of small newspapers, Hollinger bought 25 percent of Southam Inc. . . . ending up with control not only of Southam but of 40 percent of the English-language readership in Canada" (p. 51). In fact, Black started in the business in 1966, and by the time he bought his initial 23% of Southam in 1992 (now 58%), he already owned such international properties as the Daily Telegraph of London, The Jerusalem Post, and part of the Fairfax chain in Australia. And, Black's control over English-language readership exceeds 50%, not 40%.

But if Black and the other media tycoons such as Ted Rogers, Paul Desmarais, Ken Thomson, and the late Pierre Peladeau go unmentioned, then who are these "powerful groups" that "manage the news"? For Bird, the media are in "The Government's Grip," as one subheading tells us. His examples include the coverage of the Persian Gulf War; for his critique Bird relies on journalists Peter Calamai and Mark Starowicz, as well as TV Guide and the Utne Reader, ignoring Douglas Kellner's The Persian Gulf TV War (1992) and other academic sources in favour of a shallow, simplistic, and sanitized account.

In another section we learn that "It's Not Just the Government" that controls the news. Over the space of four pages, vague reference is made to an advertising boycott at the Kingston Whig-Standard, which raises more questions than it answers. One page is devoted to the "ephemeral" arguments about the influence of "corporate culture," and then it is on to a discussion of "lobbyists," before wrapping up with institutions monitoring news bias (pp. 89-92).

Bird describes On Balance, which he identifies as "a publication of the National Media Archive," as an example of "hard-nosed social science research" (p. 92). Bird's description makes it appear to be an academic publication, rather than a product of the neo-liberal corporate-financed Fraser Institute in Vancouver. Bird appears to be unaware of the Fraser Institute's connection with On Balance, although he does acknowledge that such watchdog organizations "have an ideological leaning toward the interests of business" (p. 92). More importantly, he omits the academic literature, where the Fraser Institute's On Balance has been trashed as little more than corporate propaganda rather than "hard-nosed social science research" (cf. Hackett, Gilsdorf, and Savage 1992). Elsewhere, he cites research by the Freedom Foundation, which was founded and funded by the Gannett Corp. newspaper chain in the U.S. (p. 66).

Finally, on the topic of technology, Bird sounds like a modern day Marshall McLuhan, complete with reference to "the global village" (p. 129) and "tribalism" (p. 130), and even "hot and cool" media. At least Bird is critical of new technology, unlike McLuhan. But in his urge to document the information gap, he insists that internet users "pay anywhere from $15 to $30 per month just to sign on" (p. 129). Not in my neck of the woods, where sign on and unlimited access costs $22 per month, at this writing. "Users who spend literally all day cruising the information highway may pay up to several hundred dollars per month in hourly charges," Bird states (p. 129). Literally all day? Elsewhere he tells us that the reporter's typewriter is now a computer which "is regularly purged of text as it fills up, leaving no record" (p. 110). What newsroom is this, where reporters' computers have so little hard drive, and no floppy disks?

If Bird was serious about discussing the role of technology in society, he might have referred to the work by Neil Postman more than just in passing, and added in his own colleague at Carleton University, Heather Menzies (1996), or Ursula Franklin (1990), and even George Grant (1969).
Like the reporters' computers he describes, Bird's book has been purged of historical context, but it is the work of his colleagues rather than his own work that is missing. And it is a mortal sin of omission.

References

Bagdikian, Ben H. 1971. The Information Machines: Their Impact on Men and the Media. New York: Harper & Row.
---. 1997. The Media Monopoly. 5th ed. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Barlow, Maude, and James Winter. 1997. The Big Black Book: The Essential Views of Conrad and Barbara Amiel Black. Toronto: Stoddart.

Chomsky, Noam. 1989. Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies. Toronto: CBC Enterprises.

Franklin, Ursula. 1990. The Real World of Technology. Concord, ON: Anansi.

Grant, George. 1969. Technology and Empire. Concord, ON: Anansi.

Hackett, Robert. 1991. News and Dissent: The Press and the Politics of Peace in Canada. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
---, Bill Gilsdorf, and Philip Savage. 1992. "News Balance Rhetoric: The Fraser Institute's Political Appropriation of Content Analysis." Canadian Journal of Communication 17, no. 1: 15-36.

Hallin, Daniel. 1989. The "Uncensored War": The Media and Vietnam. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Herman, Edward, and Noam Chomsky. 1988. Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. New York: Pantheon.

Herman, Edward, and Robert McChesney. 1997. The Global Media: The New Missionaries of Global Capitalism. London, UK: Cassell.

Kellner, Douglas. 1992. The Persian Gulf TV War. San Francisco, CA: Westview Press.

Menzies, Heather. 1996. Whose Brave New World? The Information Highway and the New Economy. Toronto: Between The Lines.

Postman, Neil. 1985. Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Showbusiness. New York: Penguin.

Silva, Edward. 1995. More Perishable than Lettuce or Tomatoes: Labour Law Reform and Toronto's Newspapers. Halifax, NS: Fernwood.

Winter, James. 1996. Democracy's Oxygen: How Corporations Control the News. Montreal: Black Rose Books.