Is objective journalism dead?

The last few days, I’ve been thinking a lot about the ways that NCPR and our journalism are perceived.

I had a particularly ugly conversation with someone in the environmental community.

We also took a lot of flack from anti-Park Agency folks, convinced that we’re carrying water for the state.

A widely-shared view seems to be that there’s little faith — and maybe little interest — in a news organization that tries to be objective.

For some, the fact that we have ‘public radio’ in our name is a badge of shame, a clear sign of a lefty-liberal agenda.

Others are frustrated that we’re not playing an advocacy role.

And some just plain aren’t buying it: They believe that the whole concept of independence and balance are smokescreens for a hidden agenda.

My own views on this are (not surprisingly) pretty different. I’m an old school news guy. (I started working as a reporter in 1984…)

I work hard to make sure that my loyalty is to the story, to the facts, to fairness, not to the agendas of the people in my stories.

(I could go on about this, but I’ll say simply that I love it when my initial ideas about an issue turn out to be wrong. I love surprises and complexity. That’s why I’m a journalist, really.)

But a growing number of critics — including some of the best media critics in the country — say objectivity just isn’t possible.

Bias is human, they say. We all have agendas, favorites, prejudices.

This particular debate comes at a time when the North Country has a thriving and multifaceted journalism culture.

New blogs, magazines, TV, newspapers, AM radio, a medley of different public radio stations offer a rich discourse about our lives and arguments.

So what do you think? Do you prefer your news sources to come with a particular and openly-stated agenda?

Or do you think “objective” is still a valid ideal, something you want in the mix?