At a time when digital technologies are helping to redefine our relationship to knowledge and knowledge, the recently revived debate on journalistic neutrality raises an important question, that of the relationship between objectivity and trust. In this regard, communication research tends to confirm that a neutral positioning promotes public trust, but with certain nuances.
For example, a survey by Langlois, Proulx & Sauvageau (2020) reveals that, despite a declared penchant for objective reporting, many Quebecers say they place their faith in journalists who regularly report a certain degree of subjectivity, in particular animators news programs (eg Mario Dumont or Paul Arcand), or columnists like Patrick Lagacé or Richard Martineau. In a climate where trust in institutions continues to weaken, these results invite us to question once again the place that ideologies should occupy in journalism.
To better understand the importance of the current debate on objectivity, it is useful to place it in the context of the “crisis” of confidence in institutions and former authority figures. In addition to being linked to different social dynamics, this crisis can also be attributed to new information technologies, which deprive experts of previously exclusive knowledge on which much of the trust placed in them was based.
Before the Internet, a not insignificant part of the trust given to a doctor, for example, was based on specific knowledge acquired about the disease, knowledge which could only be called into question by the patient at the cost of laborious research. This data has nevertheless changed with the popularization of the web, which now allows everyone to access contradictory explanations on any symptom in a few clicks, thus sowing doubt and confusion.
The same is true for journalistic content, which today faces unparalleled competition. By removing priority access to information from the hands of professionals, the digital media have in effect stripped them of part of their legitimacy. Moreover, these same technologies have made it possible to reveal the many flaws in the systems. However, trust works in such a way that a few bad examples can discredit an entire institution.
As a result, the citizen is now confronted despite himself with the frequent need to engage in an evaluation exercise before deciding where to place his trust, which, it should be said, is extremely demanding. To reduce the complexity, some will choose to rely on individuals they think they know, which could also explain the rapid rise of celebrities to positions of authority previously occupied by experts.
This reality creates a need for institutions to provide more information about themselves, on the one hand to help audiences evaluate them and, on the other hand, to constantly re-demonstrate their credibility, the idea being that at the n the age of the web, it is not always enough to be trustworthy to be recognized as an authority. It is in this context that the plea for greater transparency of the press about its inevitable ideological biases fits.
Here, there is no question of encouraging the media to adopt a committed position, on the contrary. In a media environment spiraling out of control, journalistic impartiality is no longer just a norm, but becomes an important differentiating factor. Nevertheless, posing as a neutral observer has never prevented anyone from having opinions and does not necessarily imply keeping them silent.
In fact, in our time, any approach that aims to hide information about a person or an institution, including their values, feelings, interests and beliefs, has the potential to create distrust, often even more than the information in them. themselves. On the other hand, explicitly naming its possible biases can help neutralize criticism.
If we are to believe the rules of communication quality, the simple fact of announcing, for example, that an article falls within a “pro-democracy” ideological context or that the majority of the editors of a newsroom are personally ” pro-environment”, could have a positive effect on public trust, especially if this announcement is accompanied by a declared desire to redouble our efforts not to let these values influence news coverage.
Of course, such measures are contrary to deeply rooted practices, which is why they are often rejected before they are even seriously considered. But challenging received ideas is also part of journalists’ DNA, which suggests that thinking on this subject could still evolve.