The Devil's Advocate...

objectivity

noun : the quality or character of being objective : lack of favoritism toward one side or another : freedom from bias/Merriam-Webster

In other words…an impossibility. We all have biases about everything. Food, people, TV shows, art, movies, etc. Name a person, place, or thing, and every one of us will have a decided and particular opinion about it. But that’s not all. Besides our explicit - or conscious biases - scientistst now know that we all have implicit biases, as well. And this is where things get really tricky, because we aren’t privy to their existence. They are a part of our memory that is walled off from our conscious mind.

“Implicit bias is a form of bias that occurs automatically and unintentionally, that nevertheless affects judgments, decisions, and behaviors.” National Institutes of Health

In fact, scientists believe an implicit bias can exist even when an individual rejects the particular bias explicitly. They’re formed by past experiences and are part of the “shortcut” system that allows our brains to make sense of a world that moves far too quickly to fully comprehend.

“The human brain can process 11 million bits of information every second. But our conscious minds can handle only 40 to 50 bits of information a second.” NPR.org

In order to handle the overload and allow us to survive our environment, the brain grabs memories, assessments, and judgements from our past - sometimes even as far back as our childhood - and slaps them onto a new incoming experience, and calls it a day. It’s a process similar to your computer or smartphone defaulting to an old version of a website from the cache instead of taking you to the current, up to date, one. That’s basically how implicit bias works. Remember, we have no view into its existence or the process through which it exists.

By the way, it should be noted here that some members of both the left and the right take issue with the aforementioned science. Those doubters on the left say it’s just an excuse for what really amounts to overt bigotry and bias. Their counterparts on the right seem to think it’s just another “woke” theory that allows for labeling without evidence. Ironic, isn’t it? Like I said…objectivity is impossible.

The fallacy of Objective Journalism…

This week the Washington Post published a very compelling opinion essay written by Martin Baron, its former executive editor (2013-2021), about the absolute need for objectivity in journalism. Mr. Baron is masterful at crafting a case that leans heavily on the fact that we have no problem demanding objectivity from judges, scientists, doctors, and government regulators, for example, but seem to be waffling on whether or not a journalist needs to employ the same.

“We want medical researchers and government regulators to be objective in determining whether new drugs might work and whether they can be taken safely. We want scientists to be objective in evaluating the impact of chemicals in the soil, air and water. In short, we want to know with confidence that we can live in healthful conditions, without injury to our children, our parents, our friends or ourselves.” Martin Baron/WAPO

He readily admits that all of the institutions mentioned as needing to function with objectivity fall short of it with some regularity, but suggests that it only proves the need for greater adherence, monitoring, and enforcement. I’d add one other thing that differentiates journalist from the rest of the list. Judges, scientists, doctors, and government bureaucrats operate with guidance. There are laws, precedents, research, and even guide books that serve to take some of the personal bias out of the equation. Journalists? Not so much. In fact, over the last 10-12 years I would suggest journalists have become much more autonomous, with many of the checks and balances having gone by the wayside courtesy of shrinking budgets. Today, most journalists, aside from occasionally seeking advice from a colleague, rely on their own ability to be an effective arbiter of reality, which is, at best, careless and incredibly alarming.

A Different Path…

As far back as the 16th century, the Catholic Church, concerned that decisions regarding sainthood were being impacted by personal bias, decided to introduce an artificial objectivity into the process. In 1587, Pope Sixtus V formalized a practice that had already been going on for several, establishing the office of Advocatus Diaboli or Devil’s Advocate, within the Church. The person occupying the office was called the Promoter of the Faith, and, was charged with the responsibility of doing opposition research on the saint-to-be, and prosecuting the case as warranted. Their personal feelings and opinions were irrelevant.

“The Promoter of the Faith…critically examined the life of and miracles attributed to an individual proposed for beatification or canonization . He was called the devil’s advocate because his presentation of facts included everything unfavorable to the candidate in order to uncover any character flaws or misrepresentations of their life of heroic sanctity. The term is popularly used to describe anyone who champions a less accepted cause solely for the sake of argument.” Britannica.com

I think they were on to something, and I believe journalism would be exponentially better around the world if every newsroom was staffed by at least full-time Devil’s Advocate. In fact, for many years, newspapers had a kinda sorta version of this in the form of ombudsmen that were hired to investigate reader complaints. Taking it a step further, for a number of years, The New York Times along with several other big city newspapers, appointed powerful public editors with the power to investigate and challenge, post-mortem, the overall coverage and process of reporting on high profile stories. Public editors transparently published their findings - good or bad - in the paper itself. Margaret Sullivan, one of the Times’ public editors, offers a candid view of the culture and inevitable bias that naturally exists in newsrooms in her book Newsroom Confidential.

As you might expect, public editors were not popular in newsrooms. In fact, quite the opposite. According to Sullivan’s book, more accurate descriptives would be resented, loathed, and feared. Unfortunately, in 2017, the Times pulled the plug on the public editor position with the following explanation:

“The responsibility of the public editor ― to serve as the reader’s representative ― has outgrown that one office,” Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. wrote in a memo to staff. “There is nothing more important to our mission, or our business, than strengthening our connection with our readers. A relationship that fundamental cannot be outsourced to a single intermediary.” Politico.com

So where did the Times transfer this “fundamental responsibility”?

“[T]oday, our followers on social media and our readers across the Internet have come together to collectively serve as a modern watchdog, more vigilant and forceful than one person could ever be. Our responsibility is to empower all of those watchdogs, and to listen to them, rather than to channel their voice through a single office,” Sulzberger said in the memo.

Doesn’t seem quite the same, does it?

Of course, the problem with the public editor and ombudsman was that the scrutiny and challenge occurred after the damage was done, as opposed to the Catholic Church’s attempt to prevent a bad decision from happening in the first place. I’m not suggesting that every story covered get this preemptive treatment - that’s not remotely possible - but those that fall in known hot-button categories like investigations and politics absolutely should. Much in the same way controversial stories are reviewed by a news organization’s attorney for legal exposure, so should they be for bias, the presence of which presents a threat far more damaging than a law suit. By the way, if you’re a general manager or corporate executive sitting there saying “this is what the news director or executive producer is there for,” you haven’t spent much time in your newsroom lately. This needs to be someone’s one and only job. It’s that important.

Diversity is Not Enough…

CNN’s Jake Tapper was recently asked by Esquire Magazine if “the concept of being an ‘objective’ journalist was a priority for him.” His answer was not wrong but grossly incomplete.

“I think it's always an interesting debate because obviously no human being is purely objective. We all carry with us the biases of our lives and our experiences. But that said, my show is not about my views. My show is about the news. I have a staff that is diverse in all sorts of ways. They're all super smart and talented, but they come from different walks of life and they all have different things that they're looking at and stories that they think are important. And I think it's important to reflect all of that. And when we have a panel, we want to make sure that there are conservatives, we want to make sure that there are progressives. We want to have a debate.”

Love Jake but have the same issues with his assessment as I do with Martin Baron’s. Obviously the diversity of staff priority Tapper mentions is hugely important, and honestly, not enough news organizations give consideration to the environments and cultures that have shaped a potential hire’s world view and how they might contrast with those of the rest of the team. Too often, newsroom “chemistry” is valued over the potential for constructive conflict, which is a huge mistake. That said, diversity alone is not enough. Teams typically adapt to the thinking or leanings of their leader and they develop a group think that creates all new biases. They are ultimately motivated to cooperate and be a part of a consensus. Rarely in these situations is there a long-term benefit to being the contrarian voice…the Devil’s Advocate. It’s cute the first few times but then becomes an irritation which means it usually goes away.

In Baron’s essay he cites the wisdom of Walter Lippmann, often referred to as the father of modern journalism and certainly one of the most influential practitioners of the 20th century, who, in the 1920’s, was very concerned about the state of journalism. Much like today it was being heavily discredited and overwhelmed by the loud voices of personal bias.

“There is everywhere an increasingly angry disillusionment about the press, a growing sense of being baffled and misled.” Walter Lippmann

He saw an onslaught of news that comes “helter-skelter, in inconceivable confusion” and a public “protected by no rules of evidence.” Left uncorrected, Lippmann predicted a future absent democracy. An environment where people, as he put it , “cease to respond to truths, and respond simply to opinions … what somebody asserts, not what actually is. Sounds eerily familiar. He called for journalists to fight against and suppress their own preconceived notions and stick to the facts, saying “We shall accomplish more by fighting for truth than by fighting for our theories.” If only it were that simple. Lippmann’s call to action assumed willpower would be enough. It was noble for sure, but also absent today’s understanding of the bias within that we can’t naturally control.

I encourage you to read Baron’s full essay. While I believe it falls short of a solution to our current objectivity dilemma, it is filled with great context and advice. According to the scientists who study implicit bias (tell me if this sounds familiar) the only way to combat it and eventually overcome it is through education, which includes exposure to a full range of facts, context, and alternate points of view. You can rewire your brain but the first step is understanding that you need to and what specific areas need work. If you’re curious, by all means check out Project Implicit and see what you think. I did. It was a little scary and, frankly, more than a little revealing. We all have a lot of work to do. And in the meantime, we ALL need a few Devil’s Advocates to keep us honest.