By now you probably know that Gwen Ifill, moderator of tonight’s VP debate, has a book coming out right after the election entitled “The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama.” This means she stands to profit monetarily from an Obama victory—not to mention the fact that she, like so many other journalists, is apparently simpatico with his politics anyway.
Ifill sniffs derisively at the idea that this could in any way compromise her integrity and cool objectivity:
I’ve got a pretty long track record covering politics and news, so I’m not particularly worried that one-day blog chatter is going to destroy my reputation,” Ifill told the Associated Press. “The proof is in the pudding. They can watch the debate tomorrow night and make their own decisions about whether or not I’ve done my job.”
Hey, that’s me; Ms. Blog Chatter herself. But I’m actually not out to destroy Ms. Ifill’s reputation, which I assume is just fine. I would like, however, to give her and her colleagues a few words of advice and counsel.
There is something called judgment and disclosure. At some point before the news came out about this book, Ms. Ifill should have had the judgment to tell whatever person or persons chose her for this gig that she was writing such a work. If she didn’t volunteer the information herself, she should have been asked about possible conflicts of this sort. If she wasn’t, there was poor judgment on the part of the vetters as well.
But it doesn’t surprise me at all. Most members of the press hold to a self-serving fiction about themselves: that they are able to be coldly objective in giving us the news, no matter how partisan their views and no matter how badly they may want candidate X or Y or Z to be elected.
Some say that it’s really okay because Ms. Ifill will now bend over backwards to show she’s not biased against Ms. Palin. That’s not a solution, because it runs the risk of an overcorrection. And Ms. Ifill’s blithe suggestion that we just watch and see doesn’t help either, for two reasons: by the time we could make this judgment the damage would be done, and most observers are not necessarily aware of the subtle forms such bias can take.
Absolute objectivity is a myth, and not just for the press. It is (or should be) a goal, however. For example, I try very hard to look at the facts with a cold eye, putting aside my wishes and hopes, and trying to judge as though I had no stake in the matter. But I also know that I’m only human, and that such a goal can never quite be reached. I must acknowledge that despite my best efforts I can be biased in ways of which I’m not even aware. Those in the press who think they can be truly objective are guilty of self-deception, or of deceiving the public if they know they cannot and pretend otherwise.
But there is a remedy. Everyone who reads this blog can judge me—or any other blogger—as to my objectivity and my logic, and make their own judgments about whether my arguments are persuasive. That is because I am upfront about my political point of view.
In the case of journalists, the problem is far more serious. They reach a much wider audience in a far more influential way. But what is even more dangerous is that their pretense of objectivity—and their belief that they actually attain it (which may in some cases be a true belief and in others a cynical pose)—is deeply misleading.
I would much prefer a journalism that takes into account and openly acknowledges pre-existing biases. Newspapers should state upfront whether they are liberal or conservative, and not leave it to the naive reader to figure it out, which many never do. Same for journalists, if the paper or magazine for which they work has a mix of writers from both sides. Same for TV stations, same for all the news—and the same for the moderators of debates.
Actually, since no one is truly objective, perhaps there should be two moderators for each debate who alternate asking the questions. Of course, each moderator should nevertheless attempt to be as objective as possible. But with a questioner from each side, there would be an upfront acknowledgment and disclosure of the problems inherent in the entire enterprise. The viewer would be informed, and we all would not have to rely so heavily on the impossible-to-achieve “objectivity” of a single Gwen Ifill—or any other journalist, Left or Right.
