Jamal Kheiry’s Weblog

A lack of journalistic objectivity is a factor that any public relations practitioner has to keep in mind when planning interaction with news media. Sometimes it’s a subtle bias against a certain corporation; a tendency to doubt its motives or to see a vicious streak where there may be none. The Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant is a good example; they’ve had so much bad publicity that their very name is emotionally freighted.

Although news organizations are generally held to a high standard when it comes to objectivity, there are ways around it. One way is by choosing the subject matter you decide to report on in the first place, as well as what you ignore. For example, you can write a perfectly balanced, objective story about whether or not it’s true that Barack Obama is a Muslim. The story could clearly conclude that he’s not, and that the rumors are spread by unprincipled liars who can’t stand the thought of his presidency. But the mere fact that you reported on that story raises the issue, and can be construed as a bias-based action.

Another way to short-circuit journalistic objectivity is how you present individual stories. A great example of this is the New York Times’ coverage of the no-vote on the bailout. Today, Sept. 30, the headlines include:

• In Bailout Vote, a Leadership Breakdown
• Mixed Markets Reflect Hope for Plan
• Countless Proposals with a Common Thread: Urgent Action is Needed

If I were cynical about the news – which I tend to be, having been a managing editor and having dealt with journalists around the world – I would suggest that the NYT is pushing the bailout plan by noting what a cataclysm its failure represents. Let’s take a gander at the NYT’s top editorial for today and see if that might be plausible. Hmm. It appears that the Times’ editorial portrays the “no” vote as evidence of the Republicans’ “display of pique and disarray.”

That statement – clearly on the editorial page, where it belongs – is echoed in many ways in the paper’s front-page “news analysis,” In Bailout Vote, a Leadership Breakdown, which accused White House and Congressional leaders of “allow[ing] partisan politics to flare at sensitive moments.”

I have no problem with a newspaper publishing an editorial that is vociferous and uncompromising, but it rattles the foundation of what journalism should be when it uses its front page as a proof-point for its own editorial position.

At its best, journalism in America is done on behalf of voters. It provides them with information on a wide array of issues so that they can be motivated, informed participants in our representative form of government. But the NYT in this case is going against this mission. In the news analysis, the reporters lamented that “the gulf between what lawmakers were hearing in Washington and what they have been hearing from home proved too vast for many people, particularly Republicans, to jump,” and attributed it to a failure of leadership.

To me, as a former journalist and current public relations practitioner, this is disturbing; these folks are essentially saying that it’s a “failure” if our elected representatives are actually representing their constituents, rather than caving to pressure from party leadership. In other words, they should have done what they know is best for the masses, despite voters’ stated preferences.

As public relations practitioners, we rely on a modicum of objectivity from the news media, but this type of position-taking puts at risk our ability to get stories out adequately. Thankfully, I have not seen this type of blatant bias in the media markets where I work – Vermont and parts of New Hampshire – and I think that’s because local news organizations are held more accountable by their readers. Nonetheless, managing your business’ or organization’s image and reputation could involve media that adopt positions in their reporting, so keeping an eye on how they approach issues relevant to you is an important prerequisite to planning your media relations and other publicity efforts.