Objectivity In Journalism: A Search and a Reassessment By Richard Streckfuss Journalists did not begin to use the word "objective" to describe their work until the 1920s. The term originally represented a rigorous reporting procedure growing out of the broader cultural movement of scientific naturalism. Rather than serve as a vehicle of neutrality, the objective method was seen as an antidote to the emotionalism and jingoism ofthe conservative American press. •When journalistic objectivity is attacked today for "producing not neu- trality but superficiality"' for forcing reporters to balance "the remarks of a wise men with those of a fooP, the writers are flaying but a shadow of the original concept During its brief moment in the sun, objectivity was viewed not as something simple-minded and pallidly neutral, but as a demanding, intellectually rigorous procedure holding the best hope for social change. In today's attacks on objectivity, no one seems to have sought out its birthplace or checked into its parentage. That may be because writers have assumed that objectivity equates with neutrality. The assumption is understandable. As used today, the two terms probably are inter- changeable. But objectivity once meant more than mere neutrality, as can be seen by going back to the 1920s and watching its birth. A general reading of the trade magazines, Newspaperdom and The Joumalist, from the 1890s into the 20th century demonstrates that the word objectivity was not yet in the vocabulary of workaday journnalists or media commentators. Instead, they used the words unbiased and uncolored. To one interested in journalistic currents and practices, the omission raised questions: When did journalists begin to apply the word objective to their work? What meaning did they give it? What arguments did they make for its adoption as a journalistic norm? Those questions led to a search for the word. The results were rewarding, if somewhat puzzling. The reward came in joining a vigor- ous debate of the 1920s on problems of journalism and problems of democracy. If one listens to the voices that first called for the objective approach to news writing, one learns that modern critics are missing the message. Whatever objectivity may mean now, it had a particular and important meaning at its outset, a meaning created to cope with •Richard Streckfuss is Associate Professor of Journalism at the University of Nebraska- Lincoln. Vol. 67, No. 4 (Winter 1990) 973 974 JOURNALISM QUARTERLY new information and new conditions. Those conditions, though now mostly ignored, are with us still. To review the birth of objectivity and the conditions that brought it forth, then, is to discuss present prob- lems of democracy and journalism, but from the different perspective of hindsight. Objectivity was founded not on a naive idea that humans could be objective, but on a realization that they could NOT. To compensate for this innate weakness, advocates in the 1920s proposed a journalistic system the subjected itself to the rigors of the scientific method. That much seemed clear, and will be developed. The puzzle came in a failure to find thoughtful, formal and full debate on that idea. The search uncovered no articles, either in u-ade or scholarly journals, with titles such as T h e Case for Objectivity in Reporting" or "Objectivity Defined." Its birth could be noted clearly, but its development remained clouded. By the time the word objectivity came into general use among journalists, it had lost its specific meaning. This essay will report on the search for the word, give its definition, show its birthplace and, more importantly, discuss the affairs that spawned it. The search revealed that the words objective and objectivity were not used with any regularity until late in the 1920s. The search encom- passed all of the published proceedings of the annual meetings of the American Society of Newspaper Editors from its founding in 1923 into the 1930s. In sessions dealing with matters of fairness, balance and the like, the word objectivity did not appear at all until 1928.* Nor is the word to be found in any of ihe Journalism Bulletins flater renamed Journalism Quarterly) published between 1924 and 1929, nor in the titles of any of the numerous theses listed there. In The Conscience of a Newspaper, published in 1925, professor Leon Nelson Flint includes codes of ethics from 19 news organizations. Almost all of the codes had been adopted since World War I. None con- tains the words objective or objectivity.* Nor does Flint himself ever use the words in his text. Neither does Casper S. Yost, editorial editor of the St. Louis Globe-Democrat, in a 1924 book on journalistic ethics. The Principles of Journalism.^ Of four textbooks on news reporting published in the 1920s, three did not include the words, but a fourth, by Gerald Johnson, contains the line, "It is easier to pass the buck if one assumes the objective view of news."' Others checked were: Walter Williams and F.L. Martin, The Practice of Journalism (Columbia, Mo.: Lucas Bros. Publishers, 1922); Talcott Williams, 77?̂ Newspaperman (New York: Charles Scribner, vocational series, 1922); and Dix Harwood, Getting and Writing the News (New York: Doubleday Doran & Company, 1927). In this general omission of the words objective and objectivity, there is one notable exception, a book that apparently was the first to define 1. George S Hage and other*. New Strategies for Public Affairs Reporting (Erwlcwood Q i f f c N J • Prentice-H»ll 1976). p. 16. 2. Don R. Ptmber, 2nd ed.. Mass Media M America (Chicago and other cities: Science Research Associates, Inc. 1977). p. 94 . 3 . Vemon Nash, 'Chinese Joumaliam.* Problems of Journalism: Proceedings if the American Sodeh ofNenaPaPer Editors, V d . VIII (192«), p. 1 2 2 . ' ^ ^ i. Nelaon Flint, Conscience « Crisis ofDtmocralic Tktory: Sdtntific Naturalism & tkt Probttm tf Valut (The University Press of Kentucky, Lexington, Ky., 1973), p. 3. «-Purcdl,/»,?• '*'^' ••• ^ ' '^''^ *-'- ̂ *f""'^- T h e Concept of Procres*: HI The Scientific Phase ' Social Forcts. 4 (September 1925), p. 36. 976 JOURNALISM QUARTERLY was an anddote to what liberals saw as newspaper emodonalism and sensadonalism.'" An expansion of the points just enumerated will help in understand- ing how objecdvity became the hope of many intellectuals of the 19208. Intellectual historians say the onset of World War I chastened the opti- mistic outlook of the intellectual progressives, who, in its aftermath, began to focus on the darker side of the facts being uncovered by the sciendsts and the social scientists. The assumptions of the progress of the human race fell before the new ideas. Psychology stood at the forefront. John B. Watson, the father ofthe behavioral school of psychology, was a major influence. He denied that man had an inner nature, let alone any divine spark or soul. Watson defined the hollow man, one who is merely a product of his culture." Add to this view the ideas of Freud: Man was at center irradonal; his actions must be explained not by reason but by his unconscious drives." As a young intellectual, Walter Lippmann (who will play the central role in this essay) was excited by the ideas of Freud, but saw at once that such a view of human motivation challenged some basic ideas of man-as-voter. On reading Freud in 1912, Lippmann wrote to a friend, "Its polidcal applicadons have hardly begun, though there are a few stray articles here and there."" With Lippmann as one of the leaders, more and more ardcles and books were to come, including many dealing with the problems raised for democratic theory and the role of the press as informer and shaper of public opinion. For the findings of the psychologists — and the grad- ual secularization of public debates — had undermined the philosophi- cal foundation supporting the First Amendment. The concept of free speech had rested on a notion that, in the end, truth will win out over falsehood. In 1644, John Milton had been among the first to say it: "Let her (Truth) and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter."'* By the time of the American Revolution, this durable quality of truth was a given, and it had so remained into the 20th Century. A free press should be allowed so that truth could get into the field of battle, and a free press could be allowed because the falsehood that would certainly enter too would be too weak to cause harm. But if the ideas of the psy- chologists were valid, then most of the assumpdons underlying the belief were invalid. To Milton, for instance. Truth came to earth directly from God, and its discovery by men was part of God's plan ("Truth indeed came once into the world with her Divine Master"'*). Once thinkers discarded the idea of a divine plan for mankind, that much of the argument became dust. In Milton's world, also, truth was strong because humans were both radonal animals and moral ones. Thus, they were able to intuit moral 10. A good popular account of the intellectual currents of the 1920t it found in Vu Ntrvous Ctntralion: Amtriem 7kOT«k/.i9; 7-1930 by Roderick Nash (Chicafo: Rand McNally & Company, 1970). In particular, aee Chapter Three. l l . A i ^ , p . 47 12. aid,, p. 48. 13. Ronald Steel, Walttr Lippmann and tkt Amtrican Ctntury (Boston and Toronto: UttJe, Brown and Comptny, 1960), p. 46. 14. John MGton, Artopagitica. John W. Jales. ed. (London: Oxford UniverBty Press, l»7Si Impreuion of 19S4), pp. 51-52. 15. lUd,. p. 43. Objectivity in Journalism: A Search and a Reassessment 977 truths and rationally determine other ones. While Milton's sectarian view of religion faded with time, the idea of divinely given intuition did not. For instance, traces of Ralph Waldo Emerson's Transcendentalism ("We lie in the lap of immense intelligence, which makes us receivers of its truth...'** can be found in a 1922 editorial by the famous Kansas jour- nalist, William Allen White: "...folly will die of its own poison and wis- dom will survive... It is the proof of man's kinship with God."" But by the definition of the intellectuals of the 1920s, such ideas did not stand the test of objective analysis. The human race was neither allied to the truth through a kinship with God nor was a fully rational fact-gatherer. Instead, human beings saw things as they were stereotyped for them by their culture, and were moved to make conclusions based on their emo- tions, prejudices and desires. Thus truth was no better armed than falsehood in any public grappling. Its status was summarized with cyni- cal certitude by psychology professor Albert T. Poffenberger of Columbia University in 1925. "The truth,' he wrote, "is not a primary factor in determining belief." Instead, belief is determined by "feeling and emotion" and by "desire." "We believe what we want to believe," he concluded." In his 1922 book. Public Opinion, Lippmann applies that belief to the American system of government: It is no longer possible, for example, to believe in the original dogma of democ- racy, that the knowledge needed for the management of human affairs comes up spontaneously from the human heart.. It has been demonstrated that we cannot rely on intuition, conscience, or the accidents oi casual opinion if we are to deal with the world beyond our reach." Without such reliance that truth will win out in a free marketplace of ideas, attention focused on the market itself. And there, the intellectuals found that the contents were tainted by propaganda. During World War I, propagandists, harnessing the new psychology, had been active — and successful — in marshaling public opinion. That success "had brought psychologists, political scientists, and sociologists to a new emphasis on human irrationality and the manipulative procedures employed by dominant social groups."^ In 1922, Lippmann observed that "persuasion has become a self-con- scious art and a regular organ of popular government." This new "knowledge of how to create consent," he wrote, "will alter every politi- cal calculation and modify every political premise."*' The fear that industrial and government publicists, working through a press with a capitalistic bias, were poisoning the wells of information pervaded media discussion in the 1920s. John Dewey, probably the leading intellectual of the time, stated flatly that through the publicity agent "sentiment can be manufactured by mass methods for almost any person or any cause."" 16. Ralph Waldo Emerson, The Collected Works of Ralph Waldo Emerson, text esublished by Alfred R. Ferguson (Cambridge, Mass.: The Bdknap Presa of Harvard University Press, 1979), p. 23. 17. William AUen White. T o an Anxious Friend,' Emporia (Kansas) Cazene, Modem Essays cf Various Tipes, ChaiiesA. Cockayne, ed. (New Yoric: Charles E Merrill Company. 1927), p. 3 1 M 1 6 . 18. AlbertT. Poffcnberger, Psychology in Advertising (New York: McCraw-HiU Book Company, Inc., 192S). p. 544-M5. 19. Walter Lippmann, Public Opinion (New York: The Macmillan Company, Paperback Edibon, Second Printing, 1961), p. 248-249. 20. Purcdl. op. cU., p2S. 21. Walter Lippmann, op. dl., p. 248. 22. John Dewey, T h e United Sute», Incorporated,' Essap in Contemporary Civitixition, C W. Thomas, ed. (New York: The MacMQlan Company, 1931), p. 9. 978 JOURNAUSM QUARTERLY Truly, the view of the 1920s had moved a long way from the Jeffersonian view of U\e omnicompetent citizen, the one who could and would gather facts and who was further graced with the mysteriout (and probabV God-given) ability to intuit truth. Now the citizen had no way of intuiting truth — he was only a creature of his culture. He was not a fact gatherer and user. Propagandists, using symbols, could play on his emotional nature. And publicists could control and taint what few facts he might use in arriving at an opinion. As Iippmann wrote in 1922, T h e practice of demoaacy has turned a corner."^ The concerns were not academic ones: They were ^xirred l>y the Red Scare of 1919 and 1920. In a setting of labor unrest and anar- chist violence, the country reacted with "hysteria and superpatrio- tism."** In a single night in 1920, U\e government arrested more than 4,(XX) persons suspected of being communists.*^ In response, Iippmann — who termed the period "a reign of terror^ and "the blackest reaction our generation has known""—wrote a set of essays central to this study. For those essays, published under the tide. Liberty and the News, contained the blueprint for objective reporting. In them, Iippmann concentrated on press performance, not on die compe- tence of the readers. Concerned that the press was whipping up a jingo- istic right-wing fever in the country, Lippmann wrote that "under the influence of headlines and panicky print, the contafiion of unreason can easily spread through a settled coniniunity."" Lippmann argued that public opinion is formed by propaganda aeat- ed by special interest groups and that govermnent "tends to operate by the impact of controlled opinion upon administration."" Thus, the sources forming public opinion must be accurate. Making them so was "the baac problem of democracy." Everything else depends upon it. Without protection, «gainst propaganda, without standards of evidence, without criteria of emphasis, the living sub- sUnce of all popular decision is exposed to every prejudice and to infinite exploitation." He then sets down the training for a new sort of journalist In doing so he forms what is apparenUy the original definition of objective jour- nalism. With this increase of prestige must go a professional training in journalism in which the ideal of objective testimony is cardinal. The cynicism of the trade needs to be abandoned, for the true patterns of the journalistic apprentice are not the slick persons who scoop the news, but the patient and fearless men of science who have labored to see what the world really is. It does not matter that the news is not susceptible of mathematical statement. In fact,_ just because news is complex and slippery, good reporting requires the exerdse of the highest of scientific virtues. They are the habits of ascribing no more credit bility to a statement than it warrants, a nice sense of the probabilities, and a keen understanding of the quantitative importance of particular facts." 23. Walter Uppmamt. Ibid., p. 24S. 2 4 S t e l ( 1 6 6# , p 2S. IbU., p. 167. 2i.lbid.,p.lfn. 27.AiiL,p.lfi2. 2S. Waltfr Uppniann. Ii»tr4p OTtftt* NiM (New York: Hvcourt. Brace and Howe, 1920). p. S& 29 AM:, p. S . Objectivity in Journalism: A Search and a Reassessment 979 Ljppmann's use of the words objective, science, and scientific are sig- nificant. Adapting the scientific method to human affairs — including journalism — was central to the thought of the decade. As Lippmann wrote, "Only the discipline of a modernized logic can open the door to reality."" "Reality," to Lippmann, meant radical social change. Objective report- ing, as he envisioned it, would not create a passive justification for the status quo, as is often assumed now. Those advancing the idea of apply- ing scientific methods to human affairs — in all areas, not just journal- ism—^were political liberals. They attempted to create a system of val- ues using the scientific method, borrowing from the philosophy of prag- matism expounded by William James and its variant, instrumentalism, set forth by John Dewey. Dewey argued that the practical consequences of believing in an idea should determine its value.^The concept — an important one to grasp if one is to understand the impetus behind the creation of the theory of press objectivity—was stated well by Harold D. Lasswell, a leading political scientist: ...those who commit themselves to human dignity, not indignity, are con- cerned with operating in the present in ways that increase the probability that coming events will conform to their preference profile... If a large degree of freedom of communication is postulated as a long-run goal (as a partial real- ization of human dignity), scientific work can proceed by searching for the "myths" and "techniques" that work for or against freedom. All the available tools of theory formation, and of data gathering and processing, can be mobi- lized to accomplish the task.** If one applies that same principle to "scientific" journalism, it becomes both valueladen and fact-based. Lippmann had addressed Liberty and the News to those embracing "organized labor and militant liberalism."" He urged them to pay less attention to publishing "gallant little sheets expressing particular programmes"" and instead to join forces in creating a news service that would give the facts. "We shall advance...when we have learned to seek the truth, to reveal it and pub- lish it; when we care more for that than for the privilege of arguing about ideas in a fog of uncertainty."'' This belieP in the power of objective fact to bring about social change is echoed in the closing passage of a 1924 book on journalistic ethics: The process of attaining this condition of affairs (of testing opinions rather than preconceiving them) may not be a short one; it will doubtless seem unnecessarily long to those who believe that righteousness will immediately triumph if but given the aid of a few new laws or at most a new social and eco- 32. aid., p. 86. 33. Tht NtwEncydopatdia Britmnica, Vol. 6 (Micropadia). (Chicago, etc Encyclopaedia Britannica. Inc., 1988). p. 334. 34. Harold Laaswdl. in 1969 Introduction,' Propaganda and Promotional Adivitia, an AnnolaUd Bibliography, Ua«weU. Caaey. and Smith, eda. (Chicago: The Univer^ty of Chicago Press. 1935, reissued 1969) p. xviii-ix 35. IippRiana Uitrty and tkt Ntvs, p 101. 36. Ibid., p. loe. 37.AtaL,p. 104. ?*• By 1822. when Public Opinion was published, Uppmann had lost some of his laith in the power of lact to ahape public opinion. Taking a Freudian view, Lippmann queatjoned the bet gathering and fact-using abilibea of cilizen«over- nora. and pointed out that the complexities of the modem world made it impossible for even the best fact-gatherer to be "eU veraed enough on issues to make sound deciaiona. Even so, his thoughts on the way journ^iais ahoukl do their job did not change. 980 JOURNAUSM QUARTERLY nomic tyttem. Yet,when one contidert the progreM made in Oie natural td- ences in a relatively brief time against great oddt, one may well wonder if perchance the accomplithment of similar ends in journaUsm may not come sooner than is commonly expected." The author of that passage. Nelson Antrim Crawford, was an early proponent of harnessing Uie scientific method to journalism. The head of the Department of Industrial Journalism at Kansas State Agricultural College, Crawford published a book titled The Ethics of Joumalim in 1924. Tlie citation above is typiad of his approach. He quotes liberafly from Iippmann's works (seven citations and numerous segments under "recommended reading"). His second major source appears to be Instincts of the Herd in Peace and War by W. Trotter. One more citation from Crawford will round out the picture of the new journalism, as seen by a professor. In a school maintaining professional ideals, there must also be such a curricu- lum as will still further develop the natural intelligence and objectiveminded- ness of prospective journalists... It must supply the scientific basis for under- standing the vast technical developments of contemporary civilization. It must furnish training in what constitutes evidence, in order that the future reporter may not be misled by intentional or unintentional attempts to deceive him.* A few other professors picked up the theme. In a 1927 article, for instance, Eric W. Allen, journalism dean at the University of Oregon, wrote: If journalism means anything more than a mere trade and a technique, it must be based upon some depth of understanding. If it is, or is to become, a real profession — one of the learned professions — the thing the competent Jour nalist must understand is the scientific bases of current life... The chance for our young senior to integrate his knowledge into a social philosophy, to use it as material for developing habits of accurate thinidng, and to acquire the tech- nique of bringing scientific principles into his daily handling of current events is entirely lacking." The new ideas that newspapers should downplay emotionalism, cut out opinion and adopt the scientific method were spread to working journalists in a variety of ways. For illustration, the following messages were delivered to editors attending the annual meetings of the American Society of Newspaper Editors between 1925 and 1930. 1925. Lippmann himself addressed the group, as did a magazine edi- tor who said that the newspaper practice of having a "policy" (3 stated platform of its beliefs and aims) had done "more harm dian good." He chaiiged that too many editors approached their jobs "from the point of view of the moralist rather than the point of view of the engineer or the scientist."" 1926. A Washington correspondent for the London Times told edi- tors that their readers are "emotional rather than intellectual."** 1928. Famed attorney Clarence Darrow stated that a human being 39. Ndson Anlrim Crawford, Vte EOtia ̂ Journalim (New Yoric Alftcd A. Knopl 19M ) p. 17& 4O.Ai<,pp. 17M72. 4L Erfc W. ADen. Vounialiaffi a* Applied Social SdcnM.*/M(rM(iaM A(Br• - - - tttdinm¥fl^AmeruanSadtty^NimH0«rE^larMVoiIVp4i —wjtumw^ Objectivity in Journalism: A Search and a Reassessment 981 "is nothing but an organism that acts and reacts according to the sdm- uli applied."" And a Methodist minister, saying that his generation wished to be free of dogmadsm, said that the past's great editors, such as Horace Greeley, "could not hold their reading public today any more than... Jonathan Edwards and Peter Cartwright could retain their parishioners."** 1929. A Kansas editor and lawmaker. Sen. Arthur Capper, told edi- tors, "'It is not the dme for dogmatism or the closed mind. The old-dme editorial writer, however effective for another age, would not fit well."̂ * 1930. Ray Lyman Wilbur, secretary of the interior, told editors that in a complex, technological world, decisions must be made on the basis of fact, not emotion. "The quesdon is how are we going to train the peo- ple of a democracy so that they will look to the man who knows for decisions, rather than simply to someone who yells the loudest..."*^ Apparendy, the repeated message had an effect. By 1931, Walter Uppmann, who had been serving as editor of the New York World, thought that journalism had changed dramatically — and in his opinion for the better. Writing in the Yale Review, he called the move toward objecdvity a "revolution: The most impressive event of the last decade in the history of newspapers has been the demonstration that the objective, orderly, and comprehensive pre- sentation of news is a far more successful type of journalism tCKlay than the dramatic, disorderly, episodic type" The latter type, Uppmann argued, made newspapers the slave of the reader, adapdng copy to reach the highest circuladon figures. Because the new type of journalism seeks "the approximadon to objective fact, it is free also of subserviency to the whims of the public." In the following passage, Lippmann sums up his idea of objective journalism, his hopes for it and the means for achieving it: The strength of this type of journalism will, I think, be cumulative because it opens the door to the use of trained intelligence in newspaper work. The older type of popular joumalism was a romantic art dependent largely on the virtuosity of men like Bennett, Hearst, and Pulitzer It succeeded if tke directing mind had a flair for popular success; it failed if the springs of genius dried up. The new objec- tive joumalism is a less temperamental affair, for it deals with solider realities..* I do not know much about the schools of journalism, and I cannot say, there- fore, whether they are vocational courses designed to teach the unteachable art of the old romantic journalism or professional schools aiming somehow to prepare men for the new objective journalism. 1 suspect, however, that schools of journalism in the professional sense will not exist generally until journalism has been practiced for some time as a profession. It has never yet been a pro- 44. Qarence Darrow, "This is What I Don't Like About the Newspapers,' Problems tf Joumalism Procttdings tftkt Amtrican Stdtly ofNtuspaptr Editors, Vol. VI, p. 63 45. Ralph Sockman, "This Is What I Dont Uke About the Newspapers,* Proiltnu of Joumalism: hocttdings cftkt Amtrican Sodtly of Ntwspaptr Editors. Vol. VI. p. 77. 46. Arthur Capper, 'Is the Editorial Page on the Way Oui'* Proiltms cf Joumatism: Procttdings of tkt Amtrican Sodtly ef Ntwspaptr EdUon. Vol. VU, p. 69 47. Raymond Wilbur, 'What Chancing Conditions Conlront Us,* Probltms of Joumalism: Procttdings of tkt Amtrican Sodtty of Ntwspaptr EdUon.\o\.wn (1930),p. 14(M2. 48. Walter Lippmann, Two Revolutions in the American Press,' Yalt Rtvitw. 20:433-441 (March 1931), p. 439. 49. ItaUcs added. That Lippmann was seeking to harness the scientific method to joumalism can be heard in the way his words in the italicized segment echo the writings of the man often called the bther o( the scientific method. Sir Frand* Bacon: "But the course I propose . . leaves but bttJe to the acutenew and strength of wits, but places all wita *nd understandings nearly on a level. For as in the drawing of a straight line or a perfect circle, much depends on the steadineasandpracticeofthehand.if itbedoneby aim of hand only, but if with the aid ofruleofcompass, little or noth- ing.* Novum Ofganum, from Tht Works tf Francis Bacon. James Spedding, e t aJ . editors (New York: Hurd and Houghton,1869),p. 89. 982 JOURNALISM QUARTERLY fession. It has been at times a digniHed calling, at others a ronuntic adventure, and then again a servile trade. But a profession it could not begin to be until modern objective journalism was successfully created, and with it the need of men who would consider themselves devoted, as all the professional ideally are, to the service of truth alone." Clearly, Lippmann believed that journalistic practice had changed dramatically since the end of World War 1, and that the concept of scien- tific objectivity was a chief agent of that change. It is difficult to assess the accuracy of that view. Certainly change had occurred as journalists struggled to adapt from the Progressive Era with its moral certitude to an era when, in the words of Senator Capper, "uncertainties have replaced certainties" and "diversity and complexity have succeeded general optimism on religious, political, social, industrial, moral and economic questions."^' In measuring the change, it must be remembered that when the decade began, many papers still aligned themselves with a political party and that almost all newspapers had policies — issue positions that were to be reflected in the news columns. As one writer and editor of that day observed, when Pulitzer's New York World took on an issue like the formation of the League of Nations, "Every department was called into action."" And Henry Watterson, editor oi Louisville Courier-Journal, wrote, "The leading dailies everywhere stand for something. They are rarely without aspirations."" As for party affiliation, as late as 1931, in an article titled "The Party Flag Comes Down," an author writes in wonder, "How strange a day it will be when this, oi all nations, finds the partisan newspaper the excep- tion and no longer the rule! That day is coming though."" With such examples, it can be shown that journalism norms were changing during the decade covered in this essay, and that the cultural climate had played a part in creating them. But an economic force was at work as well. It was in the 1920s that merger of newspapers began in earnest. Whereas only about 55% of American cities had only one daily in 1920, the figure had climbed to 71.5% by 1930." When a Republican and a Democratic paper in a city were merged, editors had to find a substitute for the partisan approach to journalism. The objective approach provided such an alternative. But the Lippmann-espoused objectivity, which was seated in the broader cultural movement of scientific naturalism, was rigorous and difficult. By the time objectivity became enough a part of the working vocabulary of journalists to make its way into textbooks, its meaning was diluted. A 1935 text deals with the subject this way: "Reporters for the most part write entirely objectively and keep themselves and their opinions out of their stories."^ Objectivity had shrunk from a methodology needed to preserve so. Ai^,pp.44(M41. 51. Arthur Capper, op. cit., p. 69. 52. Allan Nevina, American Press Opinion, Boston, New York, etc.: D. C Heath & Compwy, 1928), p. 4S4. 53. Henry Watterwn, The Personal Equation in Journalism,' in The hvfession of Journalism; a coUedion particles on new^aper editing and publishing taken from Ihe Atlantic Monthly (Boston: The Atlantic Monthly Press, 1923), p. 104. 54. WiUiam Preston Beazell. T h e Party Flag Comes Down.* Atlantic Monthly, 147:366-672 (March, 1931), p. 367. S& Edwin Emery and Michael Emery, iti\ Edition, The f^tss and America (Englewood Clifb, NT- Prentice-HalL Inc. 1978), p. 430. 56. Philip W Porter and Norvan Neil Luxon, The Reporter and Ihe News (New York and Londoa- AppletofvCenturr Company, 1935). p. 61. Objectivity in Journalism: A Search and a Reassessment 983 democracy to a practical posture of day-to-day production. As the same textbook pointed out, "Editors have realized that readers... are likely to be distributed among all parties."" 57./»ii,p. 119.