November 10, 2005

Speaking on the subject of what a correspondent ought to be doing with his or her reportage, he summarized a conversation he once had with another correspondent in some far - off war - torn location like Beirut or Obababamow (Mr. Fisk drops place names like an LA hairdresser drops A - list names).

His initial position, he said, was that his duty as a journalist was to "write the first page of history" and to act as a neutral observer. His partner in conversation strongly disagreed, saying that the job was to "Monitor the centers of power," especially when they're "going to war and killing people," and most especially when they're using lies to justify such wars. Mr. Fisk was convinced!

Apparently that's a standard anecdote on this promotional tour, so here it is again in his own words, rather than my recollection, from another interview:

You know, Amira Hass, the very fine Israeli journalist, a friend of mine, we were discussing the purpose of being a foreign correspondent about two years or so ago, and I was going on about, you know, “We write the first pages of history,” in my Brit way. And she said, “No, Robert, our job is to monitor the centers of power.” And we don't do that.

And that, apparently, is what he's all about now. He conception of himself as a war correspondent is as a "nerve ending" of his paper, who is "not a machine," but rather has emotions and reacts to horrific events, all of which belongs in his reportage. Towards the end of the NPR interview, he stated that his job is to "report what's happening." But his idea of "what's happening" is what best serves the purpose of informing people so that they can't "pretend they didn't know." This turns him into a moral goad, and even less of a neutral observer.

Listening to him, I jerked my knee a bit, thinking about all the poor saps like me who don't get to go gallivanting through the Middle East and meet with Iraqi insurgent leaders and get beaten up by Afghanis. What if all we want is an account of what happened, rather than an account of Mr. Fisk's organic, emotional reactions to what happened? What if we simply want information, and not interpretation? And what if every journalist operates as Mr. Fisk does?

Then, after some more driving to the beer store, some more thinking, and a bottle or two of Magic Hat Saint Gootz (which is all burnt and wheaty), it hit me: here's a guy who - risible as I find him - is nonetheless being honest about his prejudices, his political leanings, and his complete rejection of objectivity.

But what's wrong with that, really? Mr. Fisk has met his obligation to me as a consumer of information. He's revealed that he is a subjective source with a specific agenda. That means I can safely ignore him, and he's made the decision to do so very easy for me.

There are other sources - a certain Mr. Rather springs to mind - who still labor under the misapprehension that they are objective members of an information priesthood. I've written about that priesthood before. There are also those on either end of the political spectrum who, implicitly or explicitly, believe that bias in reporting is something that must be stamped out, and that it can be stamped out.

This is nonsense, and it breeds weak minds.

To begin with, true objectivity is value - neutral. It assigns no moral superiority to one fact over another. A polling day free of violence in Basra is a fact, and so are seven dead Marines in the crater left by a roadside IED outside of Falluja. Mr. Fisk repeatedly sets up the straw man that journalistic objectivity means that "everyone has to have 50% of each story," but facts don't take sides. They just are.

Second, I'm not value neutral. Neither are you. And if you can find me a newspaper, network, or reporter who's truly value - neutral, I'll give you a big amoral cookie. Part of the process - the work - of being a critical thinker in an information society is recognizing the fact that value neutrality, and therefore objectivity, is a myth.

Finally: the only reason people want guaranteed objectivity from their information sources is because they're mental slobs. Lazy, passive absorbers of factoids who don't want to have to think very hard about what's going on in the world, who's telling them about what's going on in the world, and what relationship those two information streams have to each other and to reality. They would like it very much if their information came in easy - to - digest packets of strained goo.

But it doesn't, it never has, and if someone tells you otherwise they're either fooled or lying to you.

The only value that a cry of "Bias!" offers to me as a consumer of information is when it is accompanied by more information that I can use. Thus, knowing what Robert Fisk says about himself and what others say about Robert Fisk helps me to evaluate what Robert Fisk says about anything else. I've now got a context into which I can place his claims, and the act of forming that context, weighing his claims, and making judgments is what keeps the old gray matter supple and strong. Or somewhat less flabby, if I'm being honest, which I'm not.

Now, what exercise would my brainsponge get if the goal of "media objectivity" was actually achieved? And what possible mechanism could advocates of that goal use to convince me that it had been achieved?

I mean: I'm just supposed to believe these people?