Is it really possible to be objective?

A recent post (maybe more of a rant) by Alan Meckler of Jupitermedia over how his company is portrayed on Wikipedia reminds me that I've long thought that it's almost impossible to be objective. (Link to post here.)

Alan's beef is that the entry is innaccurate. I have no way of judging if he's right or not, nor do I really care. But it seems that every institution that tries to be "objective" from the New York Times to Wikipedia needs to realize that anything a human writes is by definition not objective. Just providing both sides of the story and trying to stick to facts is not enough. Because in the end it depends on what facts you include, in what context they're portrayed.

In the case of Jupitermedia Alan is taking offense at some controversy he says never occurred:

Then read the next controversy. There is reference to something about social networking at JupiterResearch. First of all we do not own JupiterResearch anymore and secondly as far as I am aware there was never a controversy about social networking, JupiterResearch and Jupitermedia. Clearly whomever added this "controversy" was promoting a book or service or something that has nothing to do with facts or history.

Alan is objecting to something he's not "aware" of. Thus, this controversy probably could have happened. Or it could have been important to the writer, but not the company. Might it just be better to admit the article aspires to be objective but the reality is it isn't?

I am beginning to realize that what I call "point of view journalism", something The Economist is excellent at, is the wave of the future. Because there is so much media out there most consumers of mainstream media already come in with a perspective (bias?) to begin with and nothing is going to change their mind. (If someone thinks the New York Times is liberal, it's pretty certain they will feel that way not matter what the paper write. Same goes for Fox News and its perceived conservative slant.)

Travels -- Maine

Off on a four-day weekend to Maine. Have not been here in a looong time but used to come her frequently in a previous job. Heading to Monhegan Island tomorrow. Visited it once, about 15 years ago, and am looking forward to a return visit. Not sure I could live there, but visiting is sure inspiring.

Please, don't call or write

I've long contended that most customer hotlines and online help tools are not there for the benefit of the consumer. Instead, they are barriers used to ward off pesky customers who take up a company's time.

Today's New York Times carries a piece on Netflix and their decision to have all queries go to a call center where they reach a live person. (Link to full article, registration required.)

Ms. Funk is one of 200 customer service representatives at the Netflix call center here, 20 miles west of Portland, where she is on the front lines of the online movie rental company’s efforts to use customer service as a strategic weapon against Blockbuster’s similar DVD-mailing service.

If companies really wanted to help customers they would make it easier, not harder, to get help. This decision by Netflix is acknowledgement that customers prefer a voice, not automation. And I truly hope it works out for them and increases customer loyalty. (The topic of getting to a voice, through all the decision trees, is the subject of another discussion.)

I know there are those who have numbers proving how costly a call center can be but I truly believe that companies don't understand how they can increase customer loyalty by making all this easier and friendlier. (As an experiment, trying finding the customer service number on a company's Web site. In most cases you will find it buried.)

I can't talk now

I am always a bit amused when I read a profile of an editor who refuses to speak to the reporter or only answers in an email.

From Michael Calderone's New York Observer profile of Portfolio and Joanne Lipman: (Link to full article.)

Ms. Lipman would only respond to questions by e-mailing a statement, which presented the Roth piece ..."

This strikes me odd for several reasons:

1. Editors/reporters are always asking others to be quoted but when it is asked of them they are reluctant. Seems a bit hypocritical.
2. By not answering the questions in person the editor/reporter is basically acknowledging that it's pretty scary being on the other end of the reporter's notebook.

I remember the first time I was interviewed by a newspaper reporter after working on newspapers for many years. What I thought I said and what appeared in print were vastly different. Stupid me for not being smarter.

Thus, I commend those who are rightfully cautious. But at the same time don't ask of others what you won't do yourself.

Obits, death notices, whatever

Mark Thompson sent a note to Romenesko recently commenting on the definition of an obituary. He took umbrage at someone calling a "paid obituary" an "obituary." A brief excerpt:

As newspapers have stopped producing obituaries, they have begun soliciting faux articles written by the deceased relatives or the funeral home. These are not cheap; I recall a relative's "obituary" that recently ran in the Providence Journal for the tidy sum of $700 (only could people on the business side be so stupid as to wring money from those in mourning and then wonder why they are falling in public esteem). However, these should not be called obituaries. They are ads, plain a simple. They generally don't include less savory aspects of a person's past -- a divorce, for example -- and are crafted by the sensibilities of the survivors.

(Link to full letter.)

I recall many nights on the desk fighting with survivors over the details of the "obituary". Most didn't want to give the cause of death and most wanted to control what was said and also review the content. I used to think it was important to fight for that information for the general good of the republic even if it meant pissing off a reader or two.

In recent years I've changed my mind. "Paid obituaries" or whatever you want to call them are not a scam to "wring" money from bereaved survivors. Instead, it's a chance to those to control what is most certainly the only article ever written about their loved one. It's a chance to show some respect and decency. It's also a chance to charge someone for something I think they probably find worthwhile, especially if they can control what is said about their dearly departed. Would it better to have an objective piece on the person, warts and all? Sure, but weighed against further alienating an alienated reading public then I think not.

I also have a sneaking suspicion readers don't know the difference and if they did, couldn't care less. Another case of reporters fighting for readers' rights that the readers don't necessarily want.

I say all this referring mainly to small and medium size papers. Giants such as the NY Times, Washington Post, etc. can still afford to practice the art of writing obits, something I have great respect for. But the majority of papers would benefit from charging for obits.

Outsourcing newspaper production

News from New Zealand that the New Zealand Herald has begun outsourcing its editorial production. (Full story here.)

I've often wondered why newspapers owned their own printing presses but this move was inevitable. There will be the usual outcry from traditionalists but I'd be shocked if more people didn't follow this model.

A chance to comment on the news

The news that Google will start to allow sources in news articles to comment on the final article has yielded all sorts of comments, most about how this is potentially going to harm the integrity of the articles. (Other commentators wonder if Google really knows what it's getting itself into arbitrating disputes and verifying the identify of those who claim they've been misquoted.)

Be that as it may, it's in my view a commentary on how the world feels it has been treated by the media. Traditionally it's been very hard for those quoted in articles to set the record straight. (I am not talking about disagreements over the intent of the story but over basic facts. The former is something that will always happen.)

Now quoted sources have a chance to publish their comments (supposedly unedited) for the world to judge for themselves.

Until now someone who felt they had been wronged had to contact the publication and convince a defensive editor that the reporter had erred. It usually ended with no resolution. If pushed, the newspaper would print a correction or would tell the aggrieved party to write a letter to the editor, which most times got heavily edited.

In several previous jobs I recall the editor resisting as much as possible the idea to print a correction. (This attitude, thankfully, has changed a bit, thanks in part to ombudsmen.) The New York Times seems to be one of the few exceptions. I also recall several discussions where someone suggested we randomly call subjects in stories to see how they viewed the end product. It was alway dismissed as "not cost effective." Translation -- they weren't interested in finding out.

In addition, it's been my experience that many wronged people who just don't bring up the subject knowing it will not lead to anything positive. (A fellow church member commented how the local paper quoted him and got all the facts wrong. I said I knew the reporter and was sure it was unintentional and that he should call the editor. "What's the point? he answered. "They'll just keep screwing it up.")

Google's experiment encourages more people to bring up corrections knowing the original party is not involved in the discussion and also knowing it will be seen by a much wider audience, the Web audience.

Newspapers, in my experience, have been very reluctant to correct what they term "minor" errors (spelling, title, etc.) but they need to realize it's those little things that set the tone. Errors there make the reader wonder how credible the rest of the report must be.

So you can't help wonder how much newspapers brought this upon themselves.

Update: Kara Swisher seems to agree. (Link to her post.)

Update: Paul Gillin has a similar take on this with an interesting perspective: (Link to post.)

Today, we have a new model. If someone interviews me for a story, I can post my version of the interview on my blog or publish an audio recording. I also think it's reasonable to ask the publication to link back to my comments or recording. After all, neither of us has anything to hide, right? This new approach to reporting would reduce the chance of error and provide readers with the option of reading a more detailed version of the information presented in the story.