The ideal of impartial journalism emerged in the Victorian era as a deliberate break from narrative-led reporting. The Times of London’s coverage of the Crimean War, which truthfully exposed military incompetence rather than promoting a heroic narrative, serves as a key historical example of this new, 'scientific' approach.
A core principle for maintaining journalistic integrity is to treat access as a liability ("poison") rather than an asset. By operating without a dependency on privileged information from powerful sources, a journalist can maintain an independent viewpoint. Paradoxically, this very independence often makes them more attractive to sources, thus increasing access over the long term.
Even though anyone can create media, legacy brands like The New York Times retain immense power. Their established brands are perceived by the public as more authoritative and trustworthy, giving them a 'monopoly on truth' that new creators lack.
The primary challenge for journalism today isn't its own decline, but the audience's evolution. People now consume media from many sources, often knowingly biased ones, piecing together their own version of reality. They've shifted from being passive information recipients to active curators of their own truth.
Adam Carolla suggests that as newsrooms became majority-female, their culture shifted. He argues women are more emotionally inclined to "pick a side," leading to advocacy journalism instead of neutral reporting, much like a mother struggling to be an impartial umpire for her own son's game.
Soviet outlets like Pravda saw themselves as truthful because their individual facts were accurate, despite being framed within a non-impartial communist narrative. This highlights the critical distinction between mere accuracy and the broader, now-unfashionable, goal of genuine impartiality in journalism.
The current era of tribal, narrative-driven media mirrors the pre-Enlightenment period of vicious religious wars fueled by moral certainty. The historical Enlightenment arose because society grew exhausted by this violence, suggesting that a return to reason and impartiality may only follow a similar period of societal burnout.
The century-long journalistic tradition of impartial, 'scientific' fact-gathering was allegedly dismantled by the baby boomer generation. Finding dry reporting dull, they championed an activist, narrative-driven style—seen in underground press coverage of Vietnam—which has since become the mainstream media's dominant mode.
When faced with sustained political attacks and threats, a media organization may strategically shift from cautious appeasement to aggressive, adversarial journalism. This pivot reflects a calculation that defending journalistic integrity is a better brand and survival strategy than attempting to placate a hostile political actor.
Contrary to conventional wisdom, trading favorable coverage for access to powerful sources is no longer the best way to get a story. In the modern media landscape with diverse information channels, reporters find more impactful and truthful stories by maintaining independence and refusing to play the access game.
Public media organizations like the BBC and CBC face a fundamental dilemma. If they produce dry, impartial, fact-based content, they risk losing their audience to more engaging, narrative-driven competitors. But if they adopt narratives to attract viewers, they are immediately accused of bias, creating a no-win situation.