Brent Cunningham, Managing Editor of “Coluimbia Journalism Review” and lecturer at the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism

Objective reporting and critical thinking are the strongest tools of a journalist

“As with all journalism, it is hard to know the impact of what we write. And as it pertains to the major problems of US journalism today, we often feel we are tilting at windmills”, says Brent Cunningham, Managing Editor at “Columbia Journalism Review” and lecturer at Columbia Graduate School of Journalism in the USA.

“Columbia Journalism Review” is a magazine published six times a year, and this year it received the “Utne Independent Press Award” as a magazine that showed sense for objective reporting in every social sphere and non-biased presentation of its attitudes.

1.What is the main role of the CJR?
Most people describe CJR as a media watchdog, enforcing a broadly
accepted set of journalistic standards. True enough, but the
magazine is much more than that. CJR is a magazine of ideas. We
recognize that the media is an extremely powerful institution, and
we try to examine any number of issues? From why the US went to
war in Iraq to race relations in South Africa? Through the lens of
how the press covers these issues. You can write about almost
anything? Class, politics, etc. through the lens of the media.
Our ultimate goal is to help working journalists? Editors,
reporters, owners? Think through the problems that they confront,
but also to agitate for an aggressively free press that takes its
adversarial role toward government and the corporate world
seriously. We believe that the press has a special and crucial role
to play in free societies.

2. What are the most present problems in the American
journalism and what effects has the CJR on eliminating
difficulties it notes?
As with all journalism, it is hard to know the impact of what we
write. And as it pertains to the major problems of US journalism
today, we often feel we are tilting at windmills. Take the
corporatization of the press. If I had to point to a single
situation from which many other problems flow, this would be it. It
isn’t just the simple fact that most media companies here are
publicly traded commodities, which creates a situation where the
investor’s needs--profit margins? Trump all other journalistic
concerns. But this situation, over time, creates something far more
insidious than the quest for ever-higher profits. It generates a
caution that seeps into all corners. Reporters are afraid to
challenge or argue with sources, lest they be accused of bias.
Editors are afraid to publish gruesome or controversial photos,
lest readers drop their subscriptions. If your main goal is making
as much money as possible, then you cannot pursue the type of
tough, unflinching journalism that a free society needs.

One recent example of something that CJR, along with some other
prominent media critics, can take some credit for: the introduction
of "fact-check" features and segments during the late stages of the
US presidential election. Notably The New York Times added a
regular piece in which a reporter took something one candidate said
and showed what was true and what was not true about it. ABC News
did something similar in its post-debate coverage. Such
adjudication of factual disputes is something CJR has been
imploring the press to do more of now for more than a year.

3. Could we speak nowadays about independent journalism or
the media owners define the freedom frontiers to the
journalists?
First of all, I should say that despite all the bad things that
corporate ownership has done to the press in this country, I still
believe that there are plenty of good reporters and editors out
there who try to do independent journalism. It has by no means
disappeared. Look at the work Sy Hersh has done since 9/11 in the
New Yorker. Or the work that Jim Fallows has produced for The
Atlantic. Second, the emergence of Web logs? Bloggers? Certainly
offers the promise of more independent journalism. But so far the
blogosphere is uneven journalistic territory, with some very good
and smart reporting and commentary, along with some disturbingly
thin and irresponsible work that attempts to pass itself off as
journalism. So it is unclear how this will evolve. The other thing
to consider is that, as with many of the best Web sites that
emerged in the late 1990s, the best blogs could ultimately be
scooped up by the big media companies, thereby undercutting their
independence.

4. After the question about journalist's independence one
can't avoid the question about objectivity in the
journalism toward the most journalists declare that tend
to. Is the objectivity term nowadays used and abused?
As something to strive for, objectivity remains a useful concept for
the press. However imperfect, it serves as a check on the temptation
to be intellectual dishonest as well as on a reporter’s biases,
political or otherwise.

That said, objectivity is problematic to the extent that it excuses
lazy he said/she said reporting, which does nothing to help readers
understand the implications of the numerous complex subjects in the
news each day. Reporters who cover beats develop expertise, and I
believe it is a crucial part of their job to use that expertise to,
as I said earlier, adjudicate factual disputes to help readers and
viewers understand who is right and who is wrong when that is
knowable. When it is not knowable, reporters must dig deep enough
to be able to show which side in a debate has a more legitimate
claim.

There is quite a bit more to this question of objectivity, but
that’s probably enough for this forum.

5. Do you agree that there is a positive bias in the
newspapers?
A bias toward positive, as opposed
to negative, news? Or is there positively a bias in newspapers? To
the first I would say no, there isn’t bias toward positive news.
One of the ways we define news is to say that it is mostly about
things that are broken, or problems, things out of the ordinary.
Most of that is negative. To the second I would say that of course
there is bias in newspapers. Personal bias, institutional bias,
class bias. Journalism is, to a large degree, subjective. Any
operation driven by humans is inherently biased. But I do not
believe that most newspaper reporters in this country are
ideological warriors, setting out each day to push an agenda.

6. What is the reason for the journalism being distant
today from the ordinary citizens more than ever? Do
journalists have no time to hear the people's voice or they
avoid themes about everyday problems in order to protect
themselves from a conflict with the institutions?

I assume you are referring to the article I wrote on class bias in
journalism. It is a problem. We cover the rich, the powerful, the
people who have access to the various "systems" that make up our
society. We identify with people who are like us, and with people
who have what we aspire to. No one aspires down. The flipside of
this is that we approach everything else? The poor, the sick, the
destitute? As alien, something to be observed and studied and,
ultimately, solved. Problems. The press in this country by and
large reflects the interests of the professional class, which
journalists have joined over the last quarter century.

7. Which countries today are the focus of interest for the
American journalists? Do they write stories about the
countries, their history and their population besides
themes about the political conflicts?
Well, you have papers like The New York Times, Washington Post, Wall
Street Journal, and Los Angeles Times that, along with the
Associated Press, maintain significant foreign bureaus. The tend to
write about countries where the US government or military is heavily
involved? Iraq, Afghanistan, Russia, and Israel, obviously? Or
places where there are stories that have managed to force their way
into the public consciousness. Sudan, for example, or Ukraine. These
papers also give us a steady diet of cultural and political
reportage from Western Europe, Japan, China, India, etc. Then there
are midsize papers, like the Miami Herald and Dallas Morning News,
that cover news out of Central and South America, due to the
demographics of their readership and their proximity to these
countries. But in general, the US media does a lousy job of
covering the world. Far too many Americans still believe they can
afford to ignore the world, and that is reflected in the press.

8. You are professor of the Columbia Graduate School of
Journalism. What is your opinion as a teacher, that
journalism schools should teach of?
That is a huge question, but I will keep my answer simple:
investigative reporting, ethics, and how to think critically about
the world. Beyond that, journalism education is moving toward
specialization. By that I mean students get dual degrees in things
like religion and journalism, or science and journalism, or law and
journalism. Generally, I believe in this approach. But most
journalists jump around and cover a range of topics in their
careers. So if you know how to report and think critically, I still
believe those are the journalists’ most vital tools.

By Marija Kuka