The New Standard for Objective Journalism

The GOP has become a large threat to Planned Parenthood and their pro-choice counterparts. In the past few weeks breaking news flooded newspapers, television and the Internet about the country’s budget and many riots that have plagued counties overseas. However, it is fair to argue that one of the most note-worthy stories covered is the Republicans party’s initiative to have Planned Parenthood defunded. As a pro-life, Catholic journalist this has obviously caught my eye, but what has been quite troublesome is the media’s role in covering this issue. Now more than ever have double standards invaded the news. In a world where journalism is supposed to be objective, the new standard of “neutral” in the media is to be “liberal.” And so it can be observed from the stance of a “conservative” journalist, that the news coverage of the Planned Parenthood debate has shown to be more “liberal” than should be accepted in journalism- it does not fit the mold of what journalism should be.
Last week The House passed legislation that could potentially defund Planned Parenthood. This comes after years of controversy surrounding how much money is given to Planned Parenthood through tax dollars. Last year more than $360 million was given to this pro-choice corporation. Since The House’s vote many pro Planned Parenthood have been outraged at the thought of losing funds. And many of those outraged are the journalists that we encounter everyday. These journalists have made their liberal viewpoints very clear, at the expense of offending conservative audiences through their one-sided reporting.
In reading the various articles online about the Planned Parenthood debate one headline caught my attention. It read, “The Conservative War on Planned Parenthood.” The article, written by Huffington Post writer, Bill de Blasio, said, “The conservative movement has declared war on Planned Parenthood and the rights of women. Now New Yorkers should lead the effort to fight back. Take five minutes to make your voice heard by calling your Congress member and Senator or join the Stand up for Women's Health rally on February 26th in Foley Square. Together we can show the country that New York City will not be silent when women's health care comes under attack.” Although Mr. de Blasio has a right to write his thoughts, where is the objectivism on behalf of The Huffington Post? De Blasio’s comments sound like a commercial for Planned Parenthood, which goes against every journalistic ethic.
As a conservative reader one cannot help but wonder why, in the coverage of this Planned Parenthood issue, it’s acceptable for pro-choice journalists to be able to voice their opinions and still be published, but conservative writers are left to be unheard or the “silencers,” of pro-choice actions. This double standard has become all too popular in journalism.
Before I began to analyze the subjective nature found in today’s news the “other side” (liberal journalists) needs to be analyzed. For starters, it is safe to say that perhaps the reason why so many editors and producers have allowed the liberal voice to become the standard for many of their journalists is because of the impression that we live in a predominately liberal country. But does this make the pro-life voice less valuable? One would hope not, in a democratic society where all intellectual views should be equally heard. So why is the voice of the conservative, pro-life journalist being washed out? Or labeled as “extremist.” This is not journalism- but if this is what the standard for journalism is now, than perhaps so are the balanced ethics of the profession.
On the other hand, as touched upon in the thesis, from a conservative standpoint, the new liberal norm for the majority of the sources of journalism in that the country does not fit the “objective balanced” mold that journalism should consist of. So to be fair, allow me to briefly defend the pro-life stance on the Planned Parenthood debate, since this side lacks the proper coverage it deserves- but that’s only my opinion. In defense of the pro-life movement and in an effort to give a more in depth look at where they are coming from, one must focus on the issue that has become unanimous with Planned Parenthood- abortion. The Pro-life politicians, and citizens of the United States have made it their duty to protect the lives of the unborn. They don’t want their tax dollars to support an organization, such as Planned Parenthood that provides abortions to women. In Glen A. Halva- Neubauer and Sara L. Zeigler’s article, “Promoting Fetal Personhood,” for the Feminist Formations Journal Summer 2010, they wrote, “Pro-life forces are vigorously pursuing the agenda of fetal personhood at every level of government, advancing it in hospitable states and pushing Congress to erode away the abortion right.”
However, before one can even begin to answer the question as to why the coverage of the GOP trying to defund Planned Parenthood has become unethically biased, the dynamics of who is covering the news must be broken down.
No matter if you are a journalist or not, beneath any title lies a human being with their own points of views and emotions. As a journalist it is important to contain your views and report unbiased information. Unfortunately this has not been the case with today’s news coverage, leaving the new norm for a journalist. In the case of covering the defunding of Planned Parenthood, to be a liberal, pro-choice journalists and giving your thoughts, is viewed as being “neutral” or “objective.” But if you are a journalist with conservative views and write or talk about them then you are considered “anti-woman” and too pushy with your beliefs. There is an unsaid unaccepted prejudice against the conservative reporting of the Planned Parenthood debate. In a scholarly article for “Feminist Formation,” Glen A. Halva and Sara L. Zeigher write, “We found that the pro-life movement engaged in an effective strategy of advancing the anti-abortion agenda by constructing key rhetorical positions designed to foster public opposition to abortion.” Anyone in my position would completely disagree with this when applied to today’s media when covering this particular ordeal with Planned Parenthood and the GOP. To further this argument one can take New York’s Examiner.com writer, Jessica Oesterie’s article into account. In her article covering Planned Parenthood’s rally for women’s health she wrote (in bold letters), “Planned Parenthood clinics are dedicated to the empowerment of all women through education and family planning options, particularly in underserved communities. They also offer various services to men in the form of contraceptives, disease information, disease screenings and consultation.” Now if this doesn’t sound like a Planned Parenthood advertisement to anyone then journalism must be really going down then drain. This article is clearly trying to sway readers to be pro-planned parenthood. Therefore the previous claim that pro-life people try to sway the public view to be anti-choice is falsified. With this information presented it is fair to say that it’s okay for liberal journalists to come out and freely say what they believe in, when covering this particular issue, but heaven forbid a conservative writer wrote about what they believe. The same example of double standards can be found in the criticism of pro-life actions.
The media has been quick to criticize the undercover work done by pro-life group Live Action. In their undercover work Live Action caught Planned Parenthood workers in six different states willing to help out (actors posed as) “pimps” and his “underage women” receive services instead of reporting him to the authorities for human trafficking. Rather than just reporting what happened, and let the viewer or reader infer for themselves what this meant, headlines read, “ “Falsified Deception or Lying?”, “Behind the Assault on Planned Parenthood,” (Ryan Grimm, Huffington Post), “Hoax Video Exposed,” (Media Matters for America) when in fact the videos were proven to be true. In journalism, most of the times opinions are not welcomed. There seems to be an underlying vendetta against the pro-life movement. This is so because, had the undercover work been done to expose animal-abuse no one would have said anything. But because it’s a pro-life group exposing wrong within Planned Parenthood, even when it deals with human trafficking, journalists are pointing out who they think is the “bad guy” (Live Action in this case). There is no need for this subjective behavior on behalf of the media.
The double standard within the media covering the Planned Parenthood debate is shown through this same example of Live Action’s undercover work in exposing Planned Parenthood. Live Action is in a sense a form of muckraker journalism. They did the undercover work, stated the facts of what happened and posted the video for people to see and take what they want from it on their own. In the greater part of the media’s eyes (not including Fox News) the actions of Live Action were “wrong and “manipulative.” When in reality all they did was investigative journalism. This is no different than any other investigative piece that other reporters do to expose corruption like malpractice with doctors. However, for the majority of journalists to express their personal opinion about the issue has become acceptable? As a journalist it is frustrating to see one side (the left) take precedence over the other (the right).
In his article “Journalism: Objective or Subjective?” for Salem News.com, writer Ersun Warnke said, “Journalism as a profession is defined institutionally as being devoted to objective truth. Facts. Events. Names, dates, and places. The classical definition of journalism assumes that there is some observable truth that can be related in an objective fashion from the observer to the reader.” The key word presented here is “facts.” As a viewer I just want the facts, and I will then take what I want from it.
Now this is not to say that journalists are not allowed to have some sort of voice. In certain scenarios it is to be expected that the anchor/ reporter is to give their views, based on the nature of the broadcast or publication they work for (e.g. The O’Reilly Factor, etc.). However, if a journalist is working for a “neutral,” news source, their ranting should be saved for other times.
The reasoning for my position on this issue stems not only from my experience as a journalist, but as a news consumer as well. There is a problem if a news network or publication is in anyway offensive to their audience, due to personal comments made by the journalist. For instance, I am pro-life, and as I read and watch the supposedly-neutral coverage on the Planned Parenthood debate, I am not bothered because I don’t necessarily agree with some of these left-winged journalists, but because they are carrying out their opinion too far, to the point where one side of the story is covered up by their political bias. I agree to disagree with some of these writers and broadcasters, but if news networks or publications are going to allow for their writers or broadcasters to let their pro-choice opinions be heard openly, at the risk of offending their pro-life audience, then they should openly welcome pro-life, conservative journalists to do the same. It’s only right and the balanced thing to do.
Glen A. Halva- Neubauer and Sara L. Zeigler’s again write in their article, “Pro-life groups have experienced failures, to be sure, but their history is one of creative persistence and increasing success. Where direct attacks on the abortion right have failed, the groups have attempted to establish the legal personhood of the fetus through other means, without abandoning the direct attack in venues where it has some hopes of success. It is clear that the message has begun to resonate with both legislators and the public. We anticipate that the efforts to persuade the American public that the fetus is indeed a person, and that failure to recognize its humanity harms not only the fetus but also the women and society at large, will continue to gain adherents.” Perhaps one day this massage that they write about will be heard through the news media. But to be totally “objective” in today’s standards, I believe these pro-life messages are shining through and will one day be heard through a journalist who will once again break the mold of what a fair and balanced journalist should be. Let’s shatter the glass ceiling and reverse the role of the journalist today. Tip the scale a little more to the right and more for life.