Is True Objectivity Achievable in News Reporting? Why?

This is actually an excellent question, and it's one that many people are confused about.

My view is this: Absolute, complete objectivity is almost impossible to achieve in reality. However, it is an 'ideal state' that the journalism industry must always strive for, like a lighthouse.

Why is it almost impossible to achieve? There are several main reasons:

1. Journalists are human, not machines. As long as they are human, they have their own upbringing, educational background, values, personal emotions, and even subconscious biases. It's like everyone wears a unique pair of "invisible glasses"; you can never see anything in its 100% "original color." When a journalist decides what to report and what not to report, that "choice" itself is already a subjective judgment.

2. The process of news production itself is the result of a series of "choices." Consider this:

   • Selection of material: Countless events happen in the world every day. Why is this particular event deemed newsworthy? Deciding whether a story is "worth writing" is inherently subjective.
   • Selection of sources: In any event, there are involved parties, eyewitnesses, experts, officials, opponents... Who gets interviewed? Whose statements are given prominence? This greatly influences the narrative presented in the report.
   • Choice of words: The same action can be described with neutral words or emotionally charged ones. For example, are they "protesters" or "troublemakers"? Is it "reform" or "disruption"? The difference of a single word completely changes the reader's perception.
   • Editing/Framing: A long interview might end up being only dozens of seconds long; a lengthy report might have only a few hundred words extracted from it. What to cut, what to keep—this process is also full of subjective judgment.

3. Media organizations themselves also have stances. News media does not operate in a vacuum. Behind them might be commercial companies that need to consider profit, viewership/click-through rates; they might also be influenced by the political environment of their country/region. These factors all affect their reporting tendencies.

So, if it's unattainable, why do we still talk about "objectivity"?

Because "the pursuit of objectivity" is a crucial professional ethic and methodology. A good journalist knows their human weaknesses and biases, so they employ a set of professional procedures to counteract this subjectivity to the greatest extent possible.

Therefore, many seasoned news professionals now prefer to use terms like "Fairness," "Balance," and "Accuracy."

This means:

• I admit I cannot achieve "objectivity" from a god-like perspective, but I can strive for fairness, not taking sides.
• I can strive for balance, presenting the voices of all parties involved in an event, especially opposing sides, allowing readers to form their own judgments.
• I can strictly adhere to the bottom line of accuracy, repeatedly verifying every fact to ensure that the information I report is from reliable sources and is truthful.

Therefore, you can understand "objectivity" as a professional spirit: it is not a "state," but an "action." It requires journalists to constantly battle their own biases and use professional methods to infinitely approach the truth itself. This is where its true value lies.