This essay examines the role of objectivity in the press. This is done through the views of Matthew Kieran and Theodore L. Glasser, and through two case studies involving the alleged biased newspaper reporting of One Nation and former Ku Klux Klan member David Duke. It is my argument that Glasser's cry for a responsible press is not incompatible/ irreconcilable with objectivity. .
Theodore L. Glasser believes objectivity is not a desired goal of journalism. He says objectivity removes responsibility from journalism, and that it does not serve the needs of society. (Glasser: 182) Matthew Kieran does not believe full objectivity is obtainable, however he believes basic truths exist. The job of the journalist, he says, is to explain the facts so that the readers can judge the objectivity of the report themselves. (Kieran: 28, 31) Kieran says no one can be completely objective; that there is always a level of personal interpretation in relation to news (ibid: 27) Kieran and Glasser both believe complete objectivity is both unobtainable and undesirable. .
Glasser and Kieran are thus of the opinion that the people are best served with a press that forwards understanding of the news. Kieran says that news will always be met by the values of the journalists. The construction of news, he says, creates disputes about the interpretation of events that are "irresolvable because there is no morally neutral stance from which the distinct sets of basic commitments can be impartially weighed up and evaluated." (Kieran: 27) Glasser holds that objectivity distances the news profession form explaining and understanding the truth. He is not happy with journalists merely functioning as a vehicle for the exchanges of ideas from various sources. He is of the opinion that journalists create news, not that they merely report it. Objectivity is a way of masking this creation that stands in the way of good and responsible journalism, he says.