I came to this essay confident in objectivity in journalism. It was the ideal, impossible to attain, but what we must strive for in no uncertain terms. But I had barely finished reading Kinsley’s essay (my first), I was forced to change my mind.
What Kinsley did was point out the newspaper I read, the one I most trust, “make no pretense of anything close to objectivity in the American sense.”

It does not. The Guardian is a liberal left paper. It is a newspaper, much like the American ones, which reports on daily news around the world. But its editors pick and commission smaller stories that would most interest liberals. In today’s paper, stories on the arms trade, the world bank, and the environment.

And it may surprise Americans, a paper with strong perspective can remain a very serious and respected. It doesn’t skew statistics. It’s a paper grounded in fact.

Having what Cunningham calls “a crusade,” forces them to discuss, argue, prove their point. Facts have to be checked, articles written thoughtfully because they admit openly articles have implications. Often it comes on the side of the left. But they also criticize it. When it does, I take note. It isn’t partisan, it’s a real issue. Paraphrasing I.F. Stone, “When they quote Churchill, they will not call Hitler for a comment,” they made a stance.

Without pretend objectivity, they don’t have to participate in what Rosen calls “He Said, She Said Journalism,” leaving me at lost to what to believe. It gives the paper authority.

Currently on the Guardian’s opinion page: a positive review on a book criticizing the American health care system. An article explaining how fetal rights law is an attack on women. Why Obama’s reason for not closing GITMO are just bad excuses.
While in NYT today, Bruni wrote a fluff piece about dating. Nocera took what Taylor calls a “refuge” stance by collating shooting deaths, with no commentary. What does it mean? Even the most committed gun proponents do not deny what happened in Newtown. But it did not change their minds.

It just seems to me, objectivity may not be the best way for a newspaper. When admitting subjectivity in an institution, it makes it stronger, more trust worthy. More relevant, a collective voice.

But how does it not become a mouth piece to be mocked and dismissed?

By remembering it’s a newspaper. Not to lose sight of its function to report and inform. It may have a belief system, but it still has to be believed. Robust discussions must to remain.

So what to strive for? It will be a shame for journalism to lose its ideal completely. But transparency is easy. A statement by the editor will do.
So a paper has to have integrity. Integrity to facts. When subjectivity is admitted, how one comes to conclusions becomes ever more important. Despite different points of views, there has to be pledge for the truth. Isn’t that what papers are meant to be? The teller of truths?
The truth may not be objective, but it has to be real.