Theodore L. Glasser believes objectivity is not a desired goal of journalism. He says objectivity removes responsibility from journalism, and that it does not serve the needs of society. (Glasser: 182) Matthew Kieran does not believe full objectivity is obtainable, however he believes basic truths exist. The job of the journalist, he says, is to explain the facts so that the readers can judge the objectivity of the report themselves. (Kieran: 28, 31) Kieran says no one can be completely objective; that there is always a level of personal interpretation in relation to news (ibid: 27) Kieran and Glasser both believe complete objectivity is both unobtainable and undesirable.

Glasser and Kieran are thus of the opinion that the people are best served with a press that forwards understanding of the news. Kieran says that news will always be met by the values

In Glasser's mind, objectivity serves the needs and interests of the powerful within our society. (ibid: 182) He says journalists rely on the "managers of the status quo" - the prominent and the elite". (ibid: 176) This is clearly what the press does in the two cases studies regarding Pauline Hanson and David Duke. Opposing or ignoring these politicians serve the interests and the needs of the existing power structures in society, but these are the needs and interests as the journalists themselves see them. Stuart Cunningham thinks that once Pauline Hanson and One Nation are perceived as a threat, "the elites are responding in similar kinds of ways because they have a similar position within society." (The Media Report: 8) David Armstrong, editor of The Australian, holds that his newspaper is merely reporting the inside information they get from One Nation. (ibid: 6) Armstrong thus exemplifies Glasser's point; "Objectivity in journalism effectively erodes the very foundation on which rests a responsible press." (Glasser: 176) Armstrong tries to distance his newspaper from the fact that it is irresponsible in its reporting. He claims that the newspaper is being objective in the Hanson case because it merely reports what information it receives, when in fact merely reporting insider information without scrutiny is irresponsible.

Journalists may be right in their judgements of Pauline Hanson and David Duke, but guiding the public on how to vote is not right. Here Glasser argues that objectivity is about juxtaposing facts, but that this is done 'objectively' without regard to the validity of these facts. "It means making a judgement about the news value of a truth- claim even if that judgement serves only to lend authority to what is known to be false or misleading." (Glasser: 178- 9) This is what happens in the 1999 BBC documentary about Elite Modelling Agency. The film shows how the managers of the modelling agency use drugs and exploit the young girls sexually. However, it had been edited unethically so as to make the leaders of this agency seem more immoral than they in reality are. This was done by cutting out strategic word like "don't", which can alter the meaning of a sentence dramatically. (Moen, http://www.dagbladet.no/kultur/2001/06/12/263302.html collected 13/06/01)

In the case of the former clansman David Duke, the media is not objective in its coverage of the campaign. It is evident that the media acts as advocates to its audience, that it becomes a part of the campaign, not just an observer and reporter of it. "Having witnessed Duke's statewide popularity yet again, the newspaper took decisive and controversial steps to help defeat him." The case study says "The decision to use key newsroom editors to write the editorials (…) pushed the Picayne newsroom across the line of objectivity at the outset of its runoff coverage." (Woods: 169- 170) It is clear however that the newspaper crossed the line of objectivity long before this just by ignoring the candidate.

The journalists involved in these two examples believe that politicians of strong right wing persuasions do not serve society. This however excludes the belief that democracy (here: equal right to representation) and free speech serve society best. There seems to be a justification implied in the press' ignorance of these political views that objectivity can be sacrificed in order to upho

Some topics in this essay:
David Duke, Media Report, Matthew Kieran, Modelling Agency, Glasser Kieran, Europe Australia, Glasser's Objectivity, David Armstrong, Pauline Hanson, Theodore Glasser, pauline hanson, david duke, party press, serve society, responsible journalism, political party, media report, matthew kieran, responsible press, journalism serve society, ibid 183, pauline hanson david, political party candidate, hanson david duke, media report 8,