Confusing Roles,Uncertain Responsibilities

Objectivity and Journalistic Roles

Objectivity is regarded as a central norm in the journalistic paradigm; it is seen as “the emblem” of American journalism and hallmark of its cultural authority, ²⁵ for it is through objectivity that journalists may present themselves as “credible spokespersons of ‘real life’ events.” ²⁶ This presents a conundrum, however, for opinion-driven journalism, which is as old as American journalism itself, born out of the partisan press of the colonial era and early years of the Republic. ²⁷ Over time, news was cleaved from opinion as journalism professionalized, a project that reached fruition by the 1920s, by which time objectivity was established as journalism’s chief norm. ²⁸ This process reflected “a desire to escape the merely local and contingent.” ²⁹ It ensconced journalists as authoritative arbiters of truth claims. Journalistic authority is thus derived from—and predicated on—its ability to sift through competing claims and provide the public with “the truth.”

Objectivity’s hold over journalism is such that it has been invoked to chastise errant journalists for betraying the norm even when the journalist in question was an opinion columnist, as Hindman and Thomas’ study of journalistic responses to the retirement of Helen Thomas reveals. ³⁰ Consider also the disjuncture posed by newspaper columnist George F. Will’s coaching of Ronald Reagan prior to a 1980 debate with President Jimmy Carter. Will defended his actions by explaining that he was a commentator, not a journalist and therefore not bound by any journalistic norm that would have counseled against his conduct. ³¹

We know much of the roles and normative functions of those journalists whose role it is to deliver news; it will suffice to say here that the ultimate goal of these journalists is the “gathering and providing information to citizens that is needed for self-governance.” ³² But what of those journalists whose role it is to deliver opinion? The literature indicates that, for public participation in a democracy to be meaningful, more than a simple summation of “happenings” is required; the public also requires analysis and reflection. For C. Edwin Baker, “the press should be thoughtfully discursive, not merely factually informative.” ³³ Whereas objective journalism strives for “the reporting of events,” opinion-driven journalism is tasked with “making sense of them.” ³⁴ Walter Lippmann believed the role of columnists was to connect the public to society by mediating as experts in domains beyond the layman’s capacity. ³⁵ This presumably requires a measure of subject fluency and expertise from those who commentate; according to the aforementioned George F. Will, commentators highlight the “significance that exists, recognized or not, ‘inside’ events, policies, and manners.” ³⁶ This implies the commentator is vested with insight that enables them to clarify and contextualize phenomena in a manner beyond the capacity of both the public and the commentators’ objective counterparts (indeed, reporters are precluded from doing so as part of their journalistic routine). If the cultural authority of traditional journalists stems from their adherence to objectivity, the authority of commentators is based on their “reputation for knowing and understanding things” audiences “do not, but should.” ³⁷ This didactic style implies a power differential in the relationship between the commentator-as-expert and audience-as-inexpert.

Paradigm Repair

When journalists have acted errantly and violated the tenets of the paradigm, the response has been to “repair” the paradigm and “bind together the interpretive community of journalists during times of stress” ³⁸ by asserting its guiding values. Paradigm repair functions to isolate a deviant act as “a transgression from the normal, and show it to be isolated. In this way, removal of the perpetrator equals a rooting out of the problem.” ³⁹ Scholars have applied paradigm repair to cases where journalists have admitted to socialist political leanings, ⁴⁰ committed acts of plagiarism and fabrication, ⁴¹ and expressed unpalatable opinions on matters of religion and race. ⁴² Paradigm repair—as a kind of journalism about journalism—serves inward and outward functions by buttressing internal norms and constructing those norms (and their import) for external audiences. ⁴³ In both functions, it can be said to be hegemonic in foreclosing dissent and reinforcing axiomatic values.

“A Simpler Time in Journalism”: Blurred Lines between News, Opinion, and Analysis

Journalists responding to Juan Williams’ dismissal repeatedly referenced the “blurry lines” ⁵⁵ that separated Williams’ dual roles as an “analyst” (with NPR) and “commentator” (with Fox News). This was clearly far from simple semantic difference, but rather an exemplar of the blurred lines between fact and opinion symptomatic of contemporary journalism. The New York Times’ Tobin Harshaw interviewed NPR’s CEO Vivian Schiller, who attempted to outline the “critical distinction” at stake:

News analysts have a distinctive role and set of responsibilities. This is a very different role than that of a commentator or columnist. News analysts may not take personal public positions on controversial issues; doing so undermines their credibility as analysts, and that’s what’s happened in this situation. As you all well know, we offer views of all kinds on your air every day, but those views are expressed by those we interview—not our reporters and analysts. ⁵⁶

However, this distinction was unclear to many journalists. To illustrate, a Philadelphia Inquirer columnist offered the perspective that “Williams’ case illustrates the difficulty of trying to blend fact-based analysis with what’s been called opinion-tainment.” ⁵⁷ Such distinctions were hazy, where “essentially, NPR contracted Williams to provide ‘fact-based analysis’ while allowing him to continue as an opinionated Fox commentator. It should have known that Williams couldn’t credibly serve in both capacities.” ⁵⁸ CNN’s Howard Kurtz noted that Williams was “an analyst but [was] not supposed to have any opinions. I don’t know how one analyzes that way,” ⁵⁹ while on the same network’s “Parker Spitzer,” syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker pointedly asked, “Do you want an analyst that doesn’t have an opinion?” ⁶⁰ Syndicated columnist Clarence Page observed, “the dividing line between ‘commentary,’ which is what Williams did at Fox, and ‘news analysis,’ his job description at NPR, never has been crystal clear.” ⁶¹ The boundary between opinion and analysis, for these journalists, was far from clear and was indicative of the multiple hats that contemporary journalists must wear. “What if,” asked Ruben Navarrette, “you’re both an analyst and a commentator? Each time you offer a subjective comment in one place you’re expressing views you wouldn’t air as an objective analyst in another.” ⁶² According to these commentators, Williams was dismissed because his role at NPR was expected to be different from that he occupied on Fox News. However, this was viewed as a thin, confusing, and arbitrary distinction.

Several journalists expressed alarm for the way job descriptions in journalism seem tied to particular organizations, rather than being consistent across news media:

Schiller gave a dizzying deconstruction of the fine distinctions between whether Williams should be an “analyst” and a “commentator”—can’t he be an “analyst” when he’s on NPR and “a commentator” when he’s on Fox News Channel? . . . She noted the distressing perils of Williams daring to offer his “opinion” and the undoubted benefits of his instead sticking to dishing “perspective.” ⁶³

By gently mocking the fluidity of NPR’s job description, this writer highlighted a fundamental problem of journalistic definition, where roles and responsibilities become abstracted and diluted as a result of definitional weakness. NPR’s All Things Considered featured Poynter News Institute’s Kelly McBride, who suggested, “The distinctions between reporter, analyst, commentator, columnist, are all very confusing for the public, and even confusing within newsrooms.” ⁶⁴ Chris Battle of U.S. News and World Report stated that though NPR’s job descriptions did not “even deserve serious comment—I mean, analysis,” he nonetheless offered some:

Evidently, injecting personal anecdote or observation into “analysis” breaches all known norms of journalistic ethics and downright decency in the halls of NPR. Who knew? Suddenly, there appear to be bright red lines, well articulated and clearly understood, between the roles of reporter, analyst, and commentator. ⁶⁵

The implication here is that media organizations stress fluidity and rigidity of journalistic roles whenever it suits them. Syndicated columnist Jules Witcover echoed these sentiments and pointed out the need for “better public understanding of the difference between a plain old shoe-leather reporter and a news analyst, and the more shadowy difference between a news analyst and a news commentator.” ⁶⁶ For Witcover, if such boundaries cannot be drawn and clearly identified, audiences cannot hope to know what the roles of particular members of the journalistic community are.

Fox News, which devoted a number of segments across its programming to Williams’ dismissal (more than any other network), featured a discussion between Megyn Kelly and Bill O’Reilly, with Kelly observing that NPR did not “allow [its journalists] to go on shows that encourage punditry,” to which O’Reilly retorted, “NPR has punditry all day long.” ⁶⁷ What distinguishes pundits from analysts, analysts from commentators, commentators from journalists? In an appearance on Fox’s “Sean Hannity Show,” the network’s senior political analyst, Brit Hume, argued that NPR’s “analysts and journalists are not supposed to be expressing outright opinions,” suggesting a double standard on NPR’s part for the way NPR allowed Nina Totenberg, Daniel Schorr, and Cokie Roberts to opine. ⁶⁸ Totenberg, in particular, was frequently invoked by Fox personalities as evidence of NPR’s apparent double standard, referencing comments she had made about former U.S. Senator Jesse Helms. Such claims were made with reference to journalistic roles. For example, Stephen Hayes, a columnist and guest on “The O’Reilly Factor,” noted that Totenberg “is actually a reporter . . . She is not even an analyst.” ⁶⁹ Hayes went on to argue that Williams was serving the role of “special reporter” on O’Reilly’s show and was thus more entitled to opine than Totenberg, who was expected to adhere to the objectivity norm. Pointedly (and unsurprisingly), Fox News featured more discussion of Williams’ firing than did any other broadcast outlet. Fox’s frequent, caustic contributions must be understood as ideological interventions in an issue that they—and their employees—are prominent actors. Fox, then, is a participant in this game rather than a naïve spectator. Through attacking NPR, there is turf to be won for Fox, not least in securing the loyalties of Williams as a functionary through which Fox’s liberal nemeses in the “mainstream media” can be admonished.

The questions raised by Fox, however, were prominent throughout the discourse examined here. The tone was occasionally sardonic (e.g., “It’s always troublesome when someone who gets paid for speaking his mind gets fired for speaking his mind” ⁷⁰ ), but most commentators demonstrated exasperation over the confusing and contradictory nature of contemporary journalistic roles:

Please explain the difference between “news analyst” and “commentator.” I understand the difference between “reporter” and “op-ed writer.” The first is supposed to be unbiased and un-opinionated . . . while the second is supposed to be as biased and opinionated as they come; otherwise she’s not doing her job. But how can you actually “analyze” the news if you don’t inject your own honest perspective into the mix? ⁷¹

Others yearned for “a simpler time in journalism” when journalists reported facts as news and columnists commented upon those facts, a division of labor easier to maintain when print was the predominant source of news. ⁷² Appearing on WJLA’s “Inside Washington,” Politico’s Jeanne Cummings argued the episode demonstrated “the changing nature of journalism. There are a lot of blurred lines and every one of us has to bear in mind what responsibilities and what role we want to take in our profession.” ⁷³ The Williams case, as illustrated here, encapsulates the nature of contemporary journalism, characterized by confusing roles and uncertain responsibilities.

For his part, Williams saw his comments as wholly in line with his conception of journalism. In an interview on “The O’Reilly Factor” (one of many instances where Williams spoke out about his dismissal), he drew together his experiences as a reporter, broadcasting host, columnist, and analyst together as a coherent account of what journalism means:

I was a host of a program, their senior correspondent, and their news analyst, and there was never any question about my journalism . . . I’ve got a body of work, of books, times at the Washington Post, and at Fox News in addition to NPR. You know, let the audience be the judge about the kind of journalist I am. ⁷⁴

In a separate interview on ABC’s Good Morning America, Williams reiterated his belief that he was “a good journalist. I work really hard. I think the audience knows who I am, and they know what they can expect from me, which is a good journalistic product.” ⁷⁵ This speaks to the confusing, contradictory, and multi-vocal nature of the journalistic paradigm. Whereas other journalists saw difficulty in parsing Williams’ myriad roles, Williams saw them as part of a coherent whole. We do not highlight this uncritically—it is of course somewhat self-serving (and unsurprising) for Williams to present himself as a member of the journalism paradigm in good standing: why would he not view himself as a journalist? We offer this snapshot, however, as an illustration that the very meaning of journalism is what is at stake in narratives such as this.

“Old-School Journalistic Values”: Objectivity as a Journalistic Protonorm

Reflecting the confusing nature of Williams’ role, some journalists responded by invoking a norm that is both familiar yet inappropriate, namely, objectivity, as illustrated by one columnist who argued, “Once the cat is out the bag about a reporter’s thoughts, feelings, beliefs—the perception of fair reporting by that reporter becomes that much more difficult to attain.” ⁷⁶ Yet, was it Williams’ role to provide “fair reporting” as a “reporter?” This confusion stemmed, once again from NPR, which, in the words of one news report, “argued that [Williams] had violated the organization’s belief in impartiality, a core tenet of modern American journalism.” ⁷⁷ This logic was taken to its extreme by the Times Record News, which argued in an editorial,

Williams should have been reprimanded for what he said—not as an analyst, but as a journalist, his alter ego. As a journalist, in the purist sense, he cannot express such bias, regardless of how many Americans might agree. ⁷⁸

Such a perspective seems to place opinion entirely outside the journalistic paradigm, going on to state, “Williams is just one in a long line of journalists who think they can cover the news as well as comment on it, and somehow remain objective.” ⁷⁹ Columnist Ali Younes echoed these sentiments, describing NPR’s decision as “a courageous move that adds to its credibility as an unbiased news organization that strives to present news and commentary in as fair a way as possible.” ⁸⁰ Similarly, commenting on CNN’s Joy Behar Show, Huffington Post blogger Lizz Winstead spoke favorably about Williams’ dismissal, claiming, “NPR is not a commentary station, it’s a news organization,” separating news from commentary (and implicitly placing commentary outside of the journalistic paradigm). Winstead went on to argue, “If you work for an organization that has a set of standards and strict journalistic guidelines and you go out of the norm into crazy commentary someplace else, sorry, dude.” ⁸¹ Again, the boundaries drawn here are clear: commentary (crazy or otherwise) does not belong within journalism.

Sometimes the invocation of objectivity was subtler, situating the Williams case amid a wave of journalistic change, where journalists express their uncertainty at how “the straight and narrow line that once separated reporting and opinion writing is being continually bent” ⁸² and how “with so many other voices of analysis and opinion flooding the airwaves and the Internet, the distinction has been blurred beyond public recognition. But it should still be there.” ⁸³ Here, we see journalists reaching for the familiar, trying to find fixity in a rapidly changing media environment where the old certainties are being continually eroded.

Comments such as these demonstrate the hold that the objectivity norm has over the journalistic paradigm, that even where it is not an appropriate norm, it is reflexively invoked in times of journalistic stress. These sentiments demonstrate how the journalist-as-commentator is engaged in a delicate balance: combining the two roles while attempting to fulfill social expectations to keep them separate. David Bauder of the Associated Press noted that the episode had “allowed NPR’s leaders to portray themselves as defenders of old-school journalistic values.” ⁸⁴ Was this “old-school journalistic value” the objectivity norm? Given the aforementioned concern NPR has for “fact-based analysis” and how this is distinct from “opinion” or “commentary,” it would appear so.

It is clear that, for many journalists, objectivity continues to be the glue that binds journalism, invoked even in cases where it is transparently inapplicable. Objectivity can thus be understood as a protonorm, defined as an “underlying presupposition . . . necessary for ethical reasoning.” ⁸⁵ Prior research demonstrates how journalists reach for the objectivity norm even when it is clearly not appropriate to the case under scrutiny. ⁸⁶ Our findings speak to the hegemonic permanence that objectivity has within journalism, becoming the default position to which many journalists turn in times of stress upon the journalistic paradigm, even when it is completely at odds with the merits of the case at hand. This suggests a somewhat hollow conception of journalism by many of its practitioners, where journalism is the pure and simple dissemination of unbiased information. This flat reading of journalism understands commentary as outside of the journalism paradigm.

“Let’s Talk about It”: Engaging the Public in Articulating Responsibilities

As noted in the introduction and theoretical framework of this study, there is very little scholarship on the role of opinion-driven journalism within the journalistic paradigm, still less on the responsibilities of said journalists. Indeed, the discussion above of objectivity is indicative of a lack of coherence among the voices in the discourse analyzed here on what would constitute journalistic responsibility, when we see norms being invoked that seem to run contrary to the nature of the role itself. However, prevalent throughout the discourse was an articulation of the commentator’s responsibility through appeals to the public good. Here, the commentator fulfills a role within journalism by provoking conversation on matters of public import, facilitating dialogue and encouraging critical thinking. Voices both in support of and in opposition to Williams thus coalesced around the ideals of commentary.

Although journalists varied in their assessments of the merits of Williams’ actual comments, a commonality throughout was the role of commentators in facilitating dialogue among citizens. This was typified by the Washington Post: “Williams was attempting to do exactly what a responsible commentator should do: speak honestly without being inflammatory.” ⁸⁷ Speaking on the Today Show, host Kathie Lee Gifford worried that Williams’ dismissal was a harbinger of people “being afraid to say what we truly think.” ⁸⁸ Understood as part of a journalistic discourse on an issue of concern to the journalistic community, they can be read as interventions in the debate over journalistic roles and responsibilities, implicitly foregrounding the role of opinion-driven journalism in making “thoughtful contributions” ⁸⁹ that spur civic dialogue, even on uncomfortable or unpalatable issues.

In evaluating Williams’ comments, journalists situated the public as a key player in the determination of journalistic role-related responsibilities. One editorial suggested that NPR had overreacted: “If our first reaction to every statement that makes us uncomfortable is unmitigated horror and a swift kick out the door, we run the risk of closing off all honest debate about difficult subjects.” ⁹⁰ Fatimah Ali of the Philadelphia Daily News, a self-identified Muslim American, suggested NPR “missed a prime opportunity to use Williams’ political gaffe as a teachable moment for the entire country.” ⁹¹ For Ali, “daring to be honest about his own prejudice was a decidedly brave move on Williams’ part. NPR should have seized the moment to launch an important dialogue about diversity.” ⁹²

Others echoed these sentiments. Fox’s Bill O’Reilly, for example, referenced Williams’ “sincere responsible reaction.” ⁹³ In the Washington Post, Reuel Marc Gerecht argued, “We would all be better off—Muslim Americans first and foremost—if we could have a more open discussion about Islam, Islamic militancy and what Muslims, here and abroad, think it means to be Muslim.” ⁹⁴ Howard Gensler of the Philadelphia Daily News argued, “Instead of firing Williams . . . wouldn’t it have been better (and far more illuminating) for NPR to address his very real issue with legitimate reporting and discussion?” ⁹⁵ For Slate’s William Saletan, while Williams’ comments were “certainly unsettling,” nonetheless

admitting such fears doesn’t make you a bigot. Sometimes, to work through your fears, you have to face them honestly. You have to think through the perils of acting on those fears. And you have to explain to others why they, too, should transcend their anxieties or resentments and treat people as individuals . . . [That’s] what Juan Williams did in his interview on Fox News. ⁹⁶

In a separate, later commentary, Saletan argued that journalism’s job is to “facilitate these forthright reactions, not suppress them. We must let people know that it’s okay to feel the fear without acting on it.” ⁹⁷ Washington Times columnist Elise Ehrhard noted that Williams “opened up a perfectly legitimate discussion by acknowledging uncomfortable feelings while at the same time insisting that it is wrong to paint all Muslims as extremists.” ⁹⁸ For these commentators, Williams had begun a dialogue, albeit perhaps clumsily, and NPR should have used the opportunity to continue the conversation rather than terminating it prematurely and enabling Fox to cast Williams “as a victim of political correctness.” ⁹⁹ Speaking on NPR’s Tell Me More, author Asra Nomani decried the fact that NPR “short-circuited a conversation that we really need to be having.” ¹⁰⁰ Williams had “expressed an emotionally honest and far from hysterical opinion.” ¹⁰¹

Writers and broadcasters engaged their audiences by suggesting that Williams was reflecting the national mood by articulating concerns that many Americans may have regarding Muslims in a sensitive political environment post-9/11. For these writers, Williams publicly voiced “something that, were they honest, most Americans would acknowledge feeling” ¹⁰² and had a duty to reflect public concern. Thus, while public opinion may occasionally be coarse and unsavory, it nonetheless requires expression in the public sphere if we are to grow as a society. “Appropriate or not,” U.S. News and World Report’s Chris Battle wrote, “This mental scar of trauma left in the wake of 9/11 is a reality.” ¹⁰³ The role of the commentator, then, is to reflect that reality. Williams’ anxiety was “an observation worth publicly discussing” ¹⁰⁴ and a perspective necessary for a “public arena vibrant and rich and energized because the issues are complex and many.” ¹⁰⁵

Williams positioned himself as a facilitator of public discourse in several interviews following his dismissal. In conversation with Fox News’ Megyn Kelly, Williams articulated the need for “a full-throated, full-hearted dialogue that includes all point of view.” ¹⁰⁶ Elsewhere, he iterated his belief “that people should be open and able to say, ‘this is how I feel in this situation, let’s talk about it.’” ¹⁰⁷ Note here and above the use of inclusive language. This is a reminder that many of the voices analyzed here come from op-ed columnist and broadcast commentators who are addressing not only the particulars of the Williams case, but also writing about themselves and their role within the journalistic paradigm. Second, it is a way of connecting journalism to the public, demonstrating the commentator’s role as a bridge between journalism and the public and between the public and the world, helping them make sense of the complex information they must continually process.

Implications

This study is a contribution to a sparse body of literature. There is, of course, a vast body of scholarly, trade, and popular literature on the roles, responsibilities, and practices of reporters, which supplies a broad understanding of what we expect from those who deliver the news (whether or not they meet those expectations). The same cannot be said for commentators, columnists, and analysts. We therefore see our findings as a preliminary step toward more substantive theorizing—in both empirical and normative scholarship—on opinion-driven journalism.

The substantive implication of this study is to support and confirm second-order paradigm repair. There was little consensus on whether Williams acted appropriately; indeed, given that journalists seemed either to be confused over what role Williams was occupying or invoking norms wholly inappropriate to those of a commentator, this is perhaps unsurprising. Therefore, the localizing strategy of first-order paradigm repair, where an errant journalist is castigated for breaching community norms, cannot be said to be true here. Rather, Williams’ dismissal was transformed into a generalized narrative of shifting, confusing journalistic norms. Williams became an exemplar of the confusing roles and uncertain responsibilities that contemporary journalistic actors are expected to fulfill.

What of opinion-driven journalism’s place within the journalism paradigm? Understanding this is no easy task, for broader tensions about how journalism is defined are at play. The schizophrenic relationship between news and opinion—where opinion is self-evidently a part of journalism and contrary to a chief protonorm—necessitates a reexamination of journalism as a paradigm. It should go without saying that the idea of journalism as a singular, static paradigm ought to be resisted; it is for good reason that researchers making early forays into this territory referred to the “news paradigm,” ¹¹³ indicating the manner in which norms and routines shape reporting as a distinct journalistic enterprise. How the “news paradigm” and the “opinion paradigm” converge and diverge as part of the broader “journalism master paradigm” is open for theorizing. With regard to opinion and its place within journalism, perhaps the question ought not to be, “Does opinion belong to the journalistic paradigm?” but, rather, “To which journalistic paradigm does opinion belong?” A related question might ask, “What is the relationship between these paradigms?” In short, there is much work to be done.