I imagine the the view from nowhere looks something like this. The picture looks nice but is not very informative. Photo: N H C

As much as one might love — nay cut off an arm — to be able to take credit for the blog title obviously that is not possible. It was the title of a book written by NYU Philosophy Professor, Thomas Nagel, in 1986. According to Conor Friedersdorf’s article in The Atlantic, titled: “Stop forcing journalists to conceal their view from the public”, the term has been “popularised” by NYU Journalism Proffessor, Jay Rosen.

“The View from Nowhere” is a concept well-worth exploring, writing about, thinking about some more, and then making sure — as a journalist — it is not forgotten. The best way not to forget may be to practice based on its criticism.

Objectivity is somewhat of a nonsense notion given we are all fallible and have developed bias. The idea of being completeley objective as a journalist is not possible as choices are constantly made about newsworthiness, emphasis, and who to interview etc. Moreover it is subjective assessment that gives something meaning and the ability to be communicated in a comprehensible way: without subjectivity one does not know what anything is. In a practical and day-to-day sense the View from Nowhere is explained and problematised by Rosen, who says:

“In pro journalism, American style, the View from Nowhere is a bid for trust that advertises the viewlessness of the news producer. Frequently it places the journalist between polarized extremes, and calls that neither-nor position ‘impartial.’ Second, it’s a means of defense against a style of criticism that is fully anticipated: charges of bias originating in partisan politics and the two-party system. Third: it’s an attempt to secure a kind of universal legitimacy that is implicitly denied to those who stake out positions or betray a point of view. American journalists have almost a lust for the View from Nowhere because they think it has more authority than any other possible stance.” 

Friedersdorf’s piece along with a blog entry by UK Guardian writer, Dan Gillmor, go some way in fleshing out the issue. 

The Atlantic article tells the story of American journalist, Caitlan Curren, who was — according to the article — sacked from WNYC — a New York based not-for-profit broadcaster — because she was caught holding a placard at an Occupy Wall Street rally. Interestingly the placard did not say anything — as noted by Friedersfdorf — about Curren wanting to run a propaganda campaign via WNYC. The placard was a quote from an article written by Friedersdorf and it said:

“It’s wrong to create a mortgage-backed security filled with loans you know are going to fail so that you can sell it to a client who isn’t aware that you sabotaged it by intentionally picking the misleadingly rated loans most likely to be defaulted upon.”

This quote had been published and was not considered then to be unethical. It was also picked up by NPR’s radio program, Public Money, including broadcasting a paraphrased version. Noteworthy is that the SEC — US Securities and Exchange Committeee — fined Goldman Sachs $550 million dollars for the ABACUS deal: transactions that pretty much amounted to what was written on the placard held by Curren.

So it would seem the statement might be true or at least is true enough to warrant a half a billion dollar fine. Yet in a fit of ridiculous “zero tolerance” Curren is fired for holding the words up in front of a group of people (something the published article had done for many more).

Friedersdorf’s piece is a great read for anyone feeling a little less human because of lofty notions about objectivity. This is by no means an excuse to become wantonly opinionated: in fact quite the the opposite. It is about defining real ethics that allow for the publication and expression of logical, well researched, and accurate arguments.

Do the work is the message. It is easy to quote the so-called “both sides” and call the report objective even when there is more to it and the argument from one or both sides is misleading and without evidence.

The blog entry by Dan Gillmore is mentioned because he proposes these ethical guidelines for journalists:

“1) Be human. 2) Be honorable. 3) Don’t embarrass us.”    

To talk about this issue and the case of Caitlan Curren I spoke with media ethics expert from Curtin University, Dr Joseph Fernandez.