Sandrine Boudana

A definition of journalistic objectivity as a performance

Historically, journalism as a profession emerged alongside the notion of objectivity. However, in the past decades, objectivity has been dismissed not only as an unattainable standard but also as an undesirable norm. Yet an analysis of the criticisms reveals that most scholars actually fail to define journalistic objectivity. This article tries to remedy this flaw and to suggest that journalistic objectivity is an evolving notion which can no longer be considered a synonym for neutrality or detachment. Objectivity is a standard that promotes truth, defined as a ‘correspondence, grounded in correctness, between thought and reality’ (Heidegger, 1943:1). Unlike alternative standards which are centered on personal moral values, objectivity conceives of journalism as a performance, with this term referring to three interrelated dimensions: the essential notion of practice, the existence of concrete and universal criteria of evaluation, and the openness to criticisms.

On the values guiding the French practice of journalism: Interviews with thirteen war correspondents

What are the values guiding the French practice of journalism? What is the place of objectivity among these values? These questions were asked of 13 war correspondents working for eight of the leading French newspapers. While objectivity is rejected as either an unattainable standard or an undesirable norm, it appears that a definition of objectivity is lacking and that this notion is often mistaken for neutrality. Three different conceptions of objectivity-as-neutrality emerge from the interviewees’ discourses: as a separation between facts and commentaries, as cautiousness in labeling and as a balance between the parties. Can or should one of these conceptions serve as a guideline in the daily practice of journalism? The interviewees seem to be divided on this question and several propose moral values such as honesty or modesty as alternatives. The reference to moral values in turn proves problematic insofar as the focus on the journalists’ attitudes or intentions fails to address responsibility for highly consequential actions. In the end, when discussing specific dilemmas that they themselves have faced, most of the journalists quote accuracy and fairness as criteria for the evaluation of journalistic performance. ‘Etre juste’ — meaning both to be accurate (justesse) and to be fair ( justice) — is what is expected of a professional journalist.

Shaming rituals in the age of global media: How DSK’s perp walk generated estrangement

In May 2011, IMF chief and French presidential contender Dominique Strauss-Kahn was arrested on sexual assault charges and forced to do the ‘perp walk’ in New York. The French press vividly criticized this shaming ritual, thus triggering reactions of defense, but also of self-questioning, in the American press. This study evaluates the extent to which the French criticism led the American press to show distance from the norms of its own national community. It contends that, in our age of globalized information, shaming rituals, which served to legitimate the dominant order, can now generate what Shani Orgad called ‘estrangement’.

Impartiality is not fair: Toward an alternative approach to the evaluation of content bias in news stories

Historically, impartiality has been imposed as the norm of professional journalism. Yet, be it conceived in terms of non-partisanship or balance, it offers a limited approach to the evaluation of the quality of news. This article revises the traditional approach to bias: As neutrality is impossible and truth does not lie in the middle, accuracy is better served by fairness than by a delusive position of impartiality. An alternative model promoting fairness is thus proposed, which is based on the criteria of consistency and justification of position-taking. Based on the work of socio-linguist Labov, this model is not without methodological challenges. We apply the model to a newspaper article for illustrative purposes and as a starting point for discussion, showing that, unlike impartiality, fairness is altogether an attainable and desirable standard.

The fickle forerunner: The rise of bylines and authorship in the French press

Credit attribution for journalists represents a crucial development in journalism, with numerous organizational, legal, political and literary implications. This article explores the rise of bylines and authorship in the French press during the last 250 years, as an alternative to the Anglo-American model, on which studies have focused. Findings show that bylines not only emerged much earlier in France but also represent different driving forces, functions and dynamics. While the Anglo-American rise of bylines reflected an occupational and organizational phenomenon, in which bylines were considered professional rewards, in the French case, the evolution of bylines was dependent on exogenous factors, mostly political forces that tried to discipline adversarial writers. Thus, in contrast with the quasi-linear progress of Anglo-American bylines, the French case is characterized by ebbs and flows, due to the continuous power struggle between the emerging journalistic field and the literary and political fields.

Reviving icons to death: when historic photographs become digital memes

Iconic photographs possess broad social and symbolic significance, are widely replicated over time and circulated across media platforms, and fuel public discussion. In an era of digital memes, they have become generative resources for memetic performances that not only can draw on these images’ historic authority but can also undermine it. Based on the analysis of the ‘Accidental Napalm’ memes, our research leads to a fourfold taxonomy, from memes that expand or expound the meaning of the original picture to those that narrow and potentially destroy its significance. Assessing Hariman and Lucaites’ contention that appropriations of iconic images enhance civic engagement and public culture, we argue that some memes may actually dissolve the original significance of iconic photographs and potentially degrade, rather than enhance, public culture.

Not just a joke: The ‘quenelle’ as a running gag masking anti-Semitic communication:

Invented by French comedian Dieudonné and interpreted as an anti-Semitic gesture, the ‘quenelle’ is a running gag with worldwide circulation in public settings and social networks. This case confronts us with the challenge posed by the use of humor as a cover for racist communication. Rejecting the options of political ban and media boycott as inefficient, this article examines two alternative strategies discussed in the French public sphere: One remains in the realm of humor and consists of joking back, while the other attempts to unmask the political significance of the quenelle behind the meaning that its producers claim to give it. This article draws on theories of disparagement humor and hermeneutics to propose strategic responses to those using humor as cover for denigration and vilification.

The Bias of Provocation Narratives in International News

This paper explores how provocation narratives introduce political bias in international news. It is based on a two-step methodology. First, a network analysis of country co-mentions in American, British, French, and German news corpus shows that core countries (e.g., the United States) and their opponents (e.g., North Korea, Russia, Iran) are the most frequently cited in provocation narratives. Focusing on the case where provocation narratives are the most prominent, the Korean conflict, we then employ a quantitative content analysis to identify the relationships between the countries involved in news stories using provocation narratives, and the role played by the provocation in those news stories. Our findings show that bias is introduced in many instances where journalists, while repeatedly identifying one country, North Korea, as the provocateur, omit key information such as the reasons behind North Korea’s provocations or the identity of the provoked country. This indicates that provocation narratives adopt the core countries’ geopolitical views and portray their enemies as a global threat.

Controversial Cartoons in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Cries of Outrage and Dialogue of the Deaf

This article analyzes the controversies triggered by sixteen cartoons about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, published in nine western countries between 2001 and 2014. For this, we use E.D. Hirsch’s distinction between the meaning of a text—which refers to the author’s intentions—and its significance—which emphasizes the contexts of production and reception. Critics focused mostly on significance, defenders on meaning. Using this distinction, we first examine the rhetoric of cartoons: stereotypes linked to antisemitism (accusations of deicide and blood libel), use of the Star of David as metonym of Israel, disputed historical analogies (between Israeli policy and Nazism or Apartheid). Second, we analyze four levels of contextual interpretations that have framed the debates: the cartoon as genre, the ethotic arguments about the cartoonist and/or newspaper’s track record, the cartoons’ historical and transnational intertextuality (especially with the Arab press), and the issue of audiences’ sensitivities. We analyze the complex exchanges of arguments that led mostly to a dialogue of the deaf, but also, in some cases, to partial agreement on the offensive character of the cartoons. We conclude that this methodology can be applied to other controversies around popular political texts, which offer similar characteristics.

The language of objectivity: Reuters’ internal editorial discussions on terminology in the Arab–Israeli conflict, 1967–1982

Influenced by British journalistic traditions, Reuters is a global news agency embracing impartiality as a corporate norm rather than a professional standard. This impartiality, reflected in a careful choice of vocabulary, is meant to satisfy all of Reuters’ subscribers. However, our study of Reuters’ archives demonstrates that this corporate objectivity is not an absolute principle, but the subject of internal debates and tensions, often provoked by subscribers’ reactions to particular news items. This is especially so in the case of the long-lasting and highly demanding coverage of the Arab–Israeli conflict. Focusing on the 1967–1982 period, when the internal debates at Reuters proved to be particularly tense, our archival research revealed that discussions between the London headquarters and the Middle East offices revolved around four major issues, which are the focus of this article: (1) emotive wording, (2) naming of borders and capitals, (3) use of the term ‘Palestinian’ and (4) the ‘terrorist’ and ‘guerrilla’ labels. Analysis of the real-time recording of editorial difficulties faced by Reuters over the Arab–Israeli conflict in the 1960s and 1970s demonstrates how crucial, yet Quixotic, is Reuters’ ambition to reach consensus on a language of objectivity.