Abstract II: Tuchman & Objectivity as Strategic Ritual

In this article, Tuchman addresses the use of “objectivity” by newsmen as a “strategic ritual” to counter potential criticism from peers, superiors or the general public. Objectivity is understood by newsmen as “objective fact”, one that can be verified, and will not place the reporter (or his newspaper) in danger of a libel suit, loss of profit, or have either of them perceived as biased. Tuchman compares that notion with sociologists’ (Durkheim and Weber) definitions of what objectivity means conceptually, and draws on the work of Gouldner, Mills, Udry, Hughes and others, to illustrate various justifications of “objective” methodologies. With two years of ethnographic work, and armed with specific examples of objectivity problems, Tuchman elaborately describes regular procedures of newsmen, concentrating on three influencing factors, namely, the form of an article, its content and the knowledge a reporter has of inter-organizational relationships: “Objective fact” is achieved via stylistic approaches, such as presenting supplementary facts, or conflicting opinions, using quotations (as a means of distancing the reporter from the text), presenting most “material facts” first, separating news from opinion pieces in the actual paper, relying on news judgment or common sense. Tuchman questions these practices, whose results are often at odds with the sought aim of objectivity. He questions the relationship between these strategic rituals and the credibility of news reports, the interaction between said strategies and content, as well as other potential political and social significations, which he proposes should be further studied. The notion of newsmen’s objectivity being fully discussed, the essay could have been even more compelling had other more classical debates about objectivity (What does it mean? Is it possible?) been raised.

Tuchman, G. (1972). Objectivity as strategic ritual: An examination of newsmen's notions of objectivity. The American Journal of Sociology, 77(4), 660-679.