Objectivity is the indeed the Holy Grail of journalism, though perhaps not in the way you mean. First, I think objectivity is conflated with detachment, when the two are not actually synonymous. Meanwhile, there is a flipside to the pursuit of objectivity that too often gets short shrift: Admission and explanation of subjectivity, where it applies. In practice, objectivity can never truly be attained, at best only approximated. What’s more, that approximation comes via the aggregation and normalization of necessarily subjective inputs.

Since you mentioned them, I’ll detour onto breaking news. Such stories by nature tend to be quick and more about enumerating the immediately available details than about reasoned analysis thereof. As such, my inclination is that breaking news lies on the opposite end of the spectrum from the type of journalist involvement that builds loyalty.

In terms of not calling out subjectivity, breaking news is the worst offender. For example, I see stories like: “Pit bull attacks passing woman. Owner says was unusual behavior. Neighbor says dog always growled at him.” Other than dutifully noting hearsay, any estimate of the validity and character of the sources is absent. By limiting to just the immediate physical facts and the explicitly stated content of second-hand opinions — the most clearly objective elements — much relevant context is omitted.

There are better and worse ways to incorporate subjectivity in reporting. For fear of doing it the wrong way, the traditional journalistic standards say (or are interpreted to say) just avoid subjectivity altogether. But the audience is hungry for personal slants, so they get that wherever they can, even if it is from outlets that have less regard for standards or conflicting viewpoints, where the inclusion of subjectivity is more haphazard, even insidious. The danger of subjectivity becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. The public would benefit from more modeling by responsible organizations of the right way to incorporate subjectivity.

I think it was Walter Lippman who claimed that journalism had an arc from partisan to impartial to totally objective, ranging from essentially crap to the holy grail of reporting.

He’s right that some kinds of reporting is best done objectively. But it might be worth asking if there isn’t room for journalism that gains authority not from perceived lack of bias (which is flimsy because everyone has opinions and everyone else knows that) but from respect for the journalist.

Maybe certain types of stories – breaking news, etc – should be published with no byline? I don’t really know the answer here.

My point is that it’s worth asking: is a complete dedication to objectivity really the end-all-be-all of journalistic accomplishment? And if it is, will it kill journalism?

Yeah, I was trying to convey that point to Mónica at one point last year, though I suspect that I was preaching to the choir. But the journalistic code of ethics, in its current form, bars such involvement, yes? Changing that institution can happen, but doing so is different from changing the newspaper businesses themselves.