Can a picture possibly not be objective?

Apparently it can. A picture is by essence, intrinsically true and objective. It stops being so when manipulated by us. We can edit it, put it in different settings, give it different captions... We manipulate it until getting rid of its objectivity. Does that mean that we are ought to question today's photojournalism just as we question journalism in general?  Yes.

2004- Piers Morgan publishes fake photographs of British soldiers abusing Iraquis in the Daily Mirror:

Nov. 2010- Several Spanish newspapers (El Mundo, El Pais, La Vanguardia) publish erroneous photo of children in the Gaza strip from 2005 with the following caption: "Even children cannot escape Morocco's repression":

Images vs. Words

Every time we come across images depicting the reality in foreign countries we realize how powerful they can be. We see the images, and we see them with our own eyes. This gives us the illusion of having seen the action itself with our own eyes.

For instance, we do not need anyone to tell us how children live in Somalia because we come across pictures such as this one:

Or seeing one picture of the strikes in Paris, speaks to us more than any article that can be biased in terms of numbers... : 

We tend to generally believe that images do not lie, cannot be biased and always say the truth. 

War photographer James Nachtwey in very simple words explain the powerfulness of images. As he says, during the Vietnam war, no one could believe the articles published in the U.S, knowing that they were all being biased. But everyone believed the images. 

James Nachtwey intervention on TED 

When the choice of a news story undermines your objectivity...

As mentioned in an earlier post, objectivity- or bias- can and is also a product of the choice of covering a story or not, of where to place it in the newspaper and the length of the article itself.


Article from "El Pais" (29/10/2010)- 2nd page:

Cerrojazo informativo al campamento del Sáhara

Marruecos no autoriza a la prensa a ver de cerca la mayor protesta saharaui desde 1975

Muy pocos periodistas han logrado hasta ahora ver de cerca la mayor protesta saharaui, desde que España entregó el territorio a Marruecos en 1975. A 15 kilómetros al este de El Aaiún unas 20.000 personas acampan en Agdaym Izik desde hace tres semanas para exigir una vivienda y un puesto de trabajo y denunciar de paso el "expolio" que supuestamente hace Marruecos de las riquezas del Sáhara.

Para introducirse allí hay que recurrir a todo tipo de subterfugios. Primero hay que librarse de la "escolta" policial que sigue al periodista en sus desplazamientos; después unos saharauis le vestirán con ropas locales y hasta le maquillarán para oscurecer su piel.

Por último, intentarán franquear con él los tres controles de la policía, la Gendarmería y el Ejército que dan acceso al campamento. Pero si en uno de ellos el gendarme pide la documentación o hace una pregunta al pasajero disfrazado, la "aventura" acaba ahí mismo.

En el primer control, el policial, los agentes explican que se necesita un permiso del Ministerio de Comunicación para franquearlo y llegar así hasta el campamento, pero ese departamento nunca la da. Tampoco proporciona a las televisiones las autorizaciones para rodar imágenes en la ciudad. Los periodistas de televisión entran en directo desde los balcones de las habitaciones de sus hoteles. Los vídeos caseros que se ruedan dentro del campamento y se cuelgan en múltiples webs suplen, en parte, las carencias de la prensa convencional.

Nunca desde que hay revueltas en la antigua colonia española la labor de la prensa extranjera ha sido tan cercenada como ahora en el Sáhara Occidental. En 2005, cuando se produjo en El Aaiún la revuelta que el Frente Polisario describe como la "intifada" saharaui, los periodistas trabajaron con algunos impedimentos y el wali (gobernador) dio incluso una rueda de prensa y concedió entrevistas. Su sucesor guarda silencio.

Su mutismo contrasta con las embestidas de varios ministros contra la prensa. Tras recordar que se expresaba "en nombre del Gobierno de Su Majestad" Mohamed VI, el titular de Exteriores, Taieb Fassi Fihri, se declaró "chocado" por el "enfoque sesgado" de los medios españoles "que amplifican las tesis de los agresores de nuestra integridad territorial" (la pertenencia del Sáhara a Marruecos).

Es precisamente por haber "perjudicado los intereses superiores [de Marruecos] empezando por la integridad territorial" que el Ministerio de Comunicación tomó la decisión de suspender las actividades de la cadena de televisión pan árabe Al Jazeera, según anunció. Al Jazeera ha emitido, durante años, un telediario para el Magreb desde Rabat, pero ante las crecientes dificultades para trabajar en Marruecos lo realiza, desde 2009, desde su sede central en Qatar.

Article from "Le Nouvel Observateur" (08/11/2010)- 8th page: 

Deux Marocains tués dans un camp au Sahara occidental

RABAT (Reuters) - Un gendarme et un pompier marocains ont été tués lundi lors du démantèlement d'un camp au Sahara occidental où des milliers de manifestants étaient rassemblés depuis un mois, a-t-on appris auprès d'un haut responsable de la sécurité marocaine.

"Le gendarme et le pompier ont été tués au moment où les forces de sécurité entraient dans le camp. Ils ont été poignardés à mort à l'intérieur du camp", a-t-il dit à Reuters.

"C'est la première fois que des manifestants (au Sahara occidental) utilisent des armes

blanches pour tuer des agents de sécurité gouvernementaux", a-t-il ajouté.

D'après les estimations d'un journaliste de Reuters qui s'est rendu sur place au cours du week-end, le camp établi près de la ville de Laayoune abritait environ 20.000 personnes dans 8.000 tentes.

What we have here is a great illustration of bias in journalism due to political influences. El Pais, being a very liberal newspaper tends to portray the reality of what is happening in the Sahara region. Though a continuous analysis of its articles regarding that topic shows a clear bias: it focuses on stories in which Moroccan interests are undermined and where the Moroccan government can be held responsible. It gives these stories very often 1st or 2nd page positions. On the other hand it will omit the stories in which Morocco can be seen as the victim in the situation. 

We then have the article from Le Nouvel Observateur: very short story, mentioning the death of two Moroccan officials and not giving importance to any other detail. Once again, if wee look at the regularity of the publications regarding this topic, we will notice that they are very sporadic, usually very short and often mentioning stories that go in the sense of Moroccan interests. 

These two examples show us that even the most trust-worthy, usually very unbiased and professional newspaper have their flaws and fail at being objective. 

What if the absolute truth is not what a journalist is looking for?

The absolute truth or what Roger Rosenblatt refers to as "the larger truth" seems not to be the main focus of many journalists today. These claim that it is not the work of the journalist to seek for such "truth". What a journalist is ought to do is "to present facts accurately" (Rosenblatt). Though one can argue what the word "accurately" means in this context, if we do not place the news in a larger concept of "truth". Isn't is what would help the journalist keep an objective position?
Follows, a short passage of Rosenblatt's article published in the Time:

For one thing, journalism rarely sees the larger truth of a story because reporters are usually chasing quite small elements of information. A story, like a fern, only reveals its final shocking shape in stages. Journalism also reduces most of the stories it deals with to political considerations. Matters are defined in terms of where power lies, who opposes whom or what, where the special interests are. As a result, the larger truth of a story is often missed or ignored. By its nature, political thought limits speculative thought. Political realities themselves cannot be grasped by an exclusively political way of looking at things.

Then, too, journalism necessarily deals with discontinuities. One has never heard of the Falkland Islands. Suddenly the Falklands are the center of the universe; one knows all there is to know about "kelpers" and Port Stanley; sheep jokes abound. In the end, as at the beginning, no one really knows anything about the Falkland Islands other than the war that gave it momentary celebrity—nothing about the people in the aftermath of the war, their concerns, isolation, or their true relationship to Argentina and Britain. Discontinuities are valuable because they point up the world's variety as well as the special force of its isolated parts. But to rely on them for truth is to lose one's grip on what is continuous and whole.

Journalism looks to where the ball is, and not where it is not. A college basketball coach, trying to improve the performance of one of his backcourt men, asked the player what he did when he practiced on his own. "Dribble and shoot," came the reply. The coach then asked the player to add up the total time he dribbled and shot during a scrimmage game, how many minutes he had hold of the ball. "Three minutes in all," came the reply. "That means," said the coach, "that you practice what you do in three minutes out of 40 in a game." Which means in turn that for every player, roughly 37 out of a possible 40 minutes are played away from the ball.

Journalism tends to focus on the poor when the poor make news, usually dramatic news like a tenement fire or a march on Washington. But the poor are poor all the time. It is not journalism's ordinary business to deal with the unstartling normalities of life. Reporters need a story, something shapely and elegant. Poverty is disorderly, anticlimactic and endless. If one wants truth about the poor, one must look where the ball is not.

Click here to view full article 

Can we question the notion of objectivity in journalism?

Yes. Or at least that is what Gauthier tells us. A study shows that sometimes "objectivity" can have an empty meaning and there are different ways to oppose it.
First, an epistemological opposition which means that there is no way of having a full and complete knowledge of reality. It goes further by saying that for one to develop the sufficient knowledge, the understanding, the appropriate means of research, he or she needs a lifetime. Therefore, being objective in the sense of getting all the knowledge and showing all the different sides to a story can be easily questioned.
Secondly, we can talk about an ontological contestation. This goes from the point that "reality" as we refer to it does not exist inherently from the conscious human observer. This entails that for a journalist to tell a story he de facto tell it through his personal point of view.
Follows, the pragmatic critique. It tells us that journalists, trying to be objective, adopt certain methods of work. This, in way, standardizes their methodology, and makes it an objective one. Though, what this theory says is that using an objective "method of work" does not necessarily mean obtaining an objective result - article, news report.
Finally, we find the ethical critique of objectivity. It sates that in a worry of being objective, many journalists will write and publish things that may negatively impact the public. In other words, under the cover of objectivity, journalists will let go of their ethical/moral code.

What we expect from journalists is what they expect from themselves!

The worldwide press agency Reuters, highly respected for the professionalism of its journalists has its own "Handbook" in which it details their "Standards and Values". This guidance handbook is divided into nine parts, most of them dealing with how to be as faithful to the truth and the real facts as possible in the news story. Follow, the two first parts of the Handbook:

• Take no side, tell all sides

As Reuters journalists, we never identify with any side in an issue, a conflict or a dispute. Our text and visual stories need to reflect all sides, not just one. This leads to better journalism because it requires us to stop at each stage of newsgathering and ask ourselves “What do I know?” and “What do I need to know?” In reporting a takeover bid, for example, it should be obvious that the target company must be given an opportunity to state their position. Similarly in a political dispute or military conflict, there are always at least two sides to consider and we risk being perceived as biased if we fail to give adequate space to the various parties.

This objectivity does not always come down to giving equal space to all sides. The perpetrator of an atrocity or the leader of a fringe political group arguably warrants less space than the victims or mainstream political parties. We must, however, always strive to be scrupulously fair and balanced. Allegations should not be portrayed as fact; charges should not be conveyed as a sign of guilt. We have a duty of fairness to give the subjects of such stories the opportunity to put their side.

We must also be on guard against bias in our choice of words. Words like “claimed” or “according to” can suggest we doubt what is being said. Words like “fears” or “hopes” might suggest we are taking sides. Verbs like rebut or refute (which means to disprove) or like fail (as in failed to comment) can imply an editorial judgment and are best avoided. Thinking about language can only improve our writing and our journalism.

• Opinion and Analysis

Reuters makes a fundamental distinction between our factual news stories and clearly-labelled opinion pieces.

Reuters journalists do not express their opinions in news stories, voiced video or scripts, or on blogs or chat rooms they may contribute to in the course of their work. This fundamental principle has generated huge trust in Reuters among customers and the public over many years. It holds true for all the types of news that Reuters covers, whether financial or general and in any language or form.

This is not to say that other people’s opinions have no place in our stories. They are very often relevant to the story and are essential for the reader or viewer to understand its meaning and consequences. For that to hold true, quoted opinion must be authoritative and be attributed to a named source. We risk biased reporting if we allow an unnamed source to say, for example, “I believe Company X is on the path to strong revenue growth and see its stock rising by 20 per cent over the next six months.” We have no protection in such a case against the charge that we are working in the interests of unnamed sources to talk up a stock that their firms may have a substantial interest in. We do enjoy that protection if we write: “I believe Company X is on the path to strong revenue growth and see its stock rising by 20 per cent over next six months,” said Joe Mo, a senior equities analyst at Manchuk Fund Manager which holds 7.3 per cent of the company’s share capital.

In our columns and in certain other distinct services we may create, we do allow named authors to express a point of view. We will always clearly label these pieces as being distinct from the factual news file and we will publish disclaimers that say the work does not represent the opinions of Reuters. Those journalists who are allowed to publish “point of view” pieces like columns will express solidly-grounded views in their areas of expertise and will not simply provoke with ungrounded assertions or personal attacks . For more on columnists see the section Columns.

It is the responsibility of senior editors to ensure that we publish a variety of views by aggregating the work of others, by commissioning guest contributions, by encouraging engagement by our audiences in different forms and by reflecting the multiplicity of human perspectives across a varied and diverse news file.

Analysis is a valued part of our news file and should not be confused with items like Columns. Whether in spot copy or as a stand-alone item tagged ANALYSIS, we provide valued insight into events or issues and cast light on them from a new angle without compromising our standards of impartiality or commitment to fairness. The writer’s professional judgment has a large part to play in good analysis though we must take care not to stray into the realm of opinion. Good analysis is supported by the established facts or available data and rests on the use of named sources and the writer’s expertise. Analysis need not reflect the consensus view; indeed some of the best analysis may challenge that view. A story that takes the ANALYSIS tag may also be appropriate for an informative, in-depth look at an issue of interest to a specialist readership, without necessarily needing a spot hook for the story.

(Source) Click here to view complete Handbook


One can understand that if such guidelines and standards have to be set is to avoid taking any risky path that may lead to non-valid articles or news coverage. Being a journalist means constantly finding oneself on a slippery slope, where every word choice can be criticized by the audiences.

We believe what we see and read...

Journalists have for decades been seen as the "eyes and ears" of the people. They have been going out in the world and the wild to bring us stories and inform us. We expect them to provide us with an unbiased information, that is to say that while writing they are ought to filter out their personal point of view. Though   one could ask to which extent is that possible. They need do not need to take an explicit stance to be said biased. They are taking a stance only through the choice of their words, the choice of mentioning or omitting a "detail" in the story, even the decision of covering the story or not and which place to give the article in the newspaper.

Why asking?

Living in the globalized world we live in, we are constantly both looking for and bombarded by information crossing boarders and reaching us. We want to learn about and find out what happens in the rest of the world. We are curious. We need the knowledge to have a place in our own society. "Have you heard about the conflict in X country and the proportions it is taking?", "Did you read about the last intervention of the U.N?" Not knowing and not having an opinion about these topics to talk with our peers makes us not able to participate in daily life conversation. Therefore we are ought to know.
How many of us read a newspaper on a daily basis? Or even several newspapers. Because of the easiness of communication today, we are able to discover the reality of places that we never thought were reachable.