8.1 Introduction

We all have beliefs, explicit or not, about how we know things are true. These are what is called ‘epistemological beliefs’ – beliefs about the nature of knowledge and knowing (Hofer and Pintrich 1997). They are beliefs about how we come to know things or find the truth. An example is the belief that we know something exists by observing it, such as a tree or a flower. For journalists, observing is one of the cornerstones of their profession. But there are also other ways of getting to the truth, such as by collecting testimony or documentation about a person or event.

Understanding the beliefs journalists have is important because these beliefs can shape how information is gathered and reported to the public. If a journalist believes there is no real objectivity, they might feel comfortable sprinkling subjective opinions into their work more frequently. On the other hand, if a journalist strictly adheres to a ‘just the facts’ approach, their work might lack contextual information beyond the simple what, where, and when of news.

It is for these reasons that, in the 2023 survey, UK journalists were presented with five epistemological belief statements relevant to their work and asked if they agreed or disagreed with them. These statements, which are not exhaustive of all the forms of beliefs journalists might have, but which are nevertheless important to understanding how they think, were:

1. Interpretation is necessary to make sense of facts
2. Truth is inevitably shaped by those in power
3. Things are either true or false, there is no in-between
4. It is possible to represent objective reality in reporting
5. It is possible for journalists to withhold their personal beliefs from reporting¹

For the rest of this chapter, I will discuss these beliefs under three headings.² The first heading is for what I will call ‘empiricist beliefs’, encompassed by the statements ‘it is possible to represent objective reality’ and ‘it is possible to withhold personal beliefs’. The second heading is for what I will call ‘interpretive beliefs’, encompassed by the statements ‘interpretation is necessary’ and ‘truth is shaped by those in power’. The third is for what I will call ‘dogmatic beliefs’, reflected in the statement that ‘things are either true or false, there is no in-between’.

These three belief sets are not mutually exclusive – journalists may variously agree with all or none of them – and again are not exhaustive of all the possible philosophical beliefs journalists might have about the processes of knowledge and knowing. But they do represent some common epistemological beliefs in and outside of journalism (Robertson 2020).

8.2 Empiricist beliefs

Objectivity, neutrality, impartiality, and other related concepts are core components of the ideology of Western journalism. They were not always at the core of what journalists believe in, but came to be so with the professionalisation of journalism through the 20th century (Schudson 2001).

Figure 8.1

One of the core assumptions of this ideology, which was drawn from the world of science, is that the external world can be reported on faithfully, the way a scientist may watch and record their observations. The strong belief in this idea is reflected in the 2023 data, which show that the substantial majority of UK journalists (69%) believed it is ‘possible to represent objective reality in reporting’ (see Figure 8.1). Half of UK journalists (50%) also believed it is possible to withhold personal beliefs from reporting. In other words, they believed they could prevent their subjective biases from influencing what and how they reported.

I describe these as beliefs because they are precisely that. These are assumptions that the objective reporting of reality is possible, free from the influences of our own personal experiences and subjective lenses.

The established nature of this belief in empirical reporting – sometimes reflected in the notions of journalists as stenographers or recorders of history – is indicated by the consistency of agreement across demographic groups. Both male and female journalists equally believed that it is possible to represent objective reality in reporting (see Figure 8.2). Older journalists were somewhat more likely to agree with this statement than younger journalists, but the vast majority across all age groups said that truly objective reporting is possible. The same is true for journalists at different levels of work experience. Among journalists with 0–4 years of experience, 58% said it is possible to be objective. For journalists with 20+ years of experience, this rose to 72%. It may be that journalists who are older and have more experience are more confident in their ability to be objective, having done the job for much longer than new recruits. An alternative explanation may be that journalists’ attitudes towards their role in society has begun to shift in the younger generation who – in the face of multiple political, economic, social, and ecological crises – are more prepared to move away from the role of objective reporter towards a more activist understanding of what it means to be a journalist (see Chapter 9).

Figure 8.2

Figure 8.3

Another factor that may play a role in shaping beliefs is where journalists work. Belief in true objectivity and the ability to withhold personal beliefs from reporting varied by the type of medium journalists worked in and the type of outlet they worked for. For instance, journalists whose main employer had a television background were slightly more likely to agree that it is possible to be objective (see Figure 8.3).

The trend is similar if we look at the main format journalists produced content in (e.g. text, audio, video), with journalists working in video slightly more likely to agree than journalists working primarily in text (72% vs 68%). A reason for this may be that video journalists work with moving visual images that are meant to represent objective reality. Humans have a bias towards believing in the truth of visual representations (Munro 2021), reflected in the idea that ‘seeing is believing’.

The fact that UK television journalists appear to have a stronger belief in objective reporting than other journalists may also be somewhat influenced by the fact that they are required by law to be impartial. Ofcom regulations hold television (and radio) journalists to standards of due impartiality and accuracy. Part of the historical reason for these regulations, and why they apply to television broadcasters in particular, is the idea that moving images have a lot more power and sway over people, so they are required not to favour any one point of view (Seymour-Ure 1996). These rules are also to apply to the BBC News website.³

The impartiality standards publicly owned media are held to are reflected in the data. Just under half (48%) of journalists working in commercial media (which includes newspaper journalists but also some broadcast journalists bound by impartiality requirements) said that it is possible to withhold personal beliefs from reporting, around the same as the whole sample (50%), but 63% of those working for publicly owned media believed so – a 15pp difference (see Figure 8.4).

Figure 8.4

8.3 Interpretive beliefs

Not all people agree that true objectivity is possible. People generally have an understanding that humans are not always fair-minded or rational. A quintessential example is fans of rival football teams viewing a referee’s decisions during a match as being unfair to each of them.

When it comes to news and journalism, many scholars will argue that the notion of true objectivity is a philosophical fiction and that journalists are not uniquely unburdened from the built-in subjective biases that we all carry (Durham 1998; Steiner 2018). Journalists will also acknowledge that a big part of their job is interpreting and making sense of things – in other words, using subjective judgement. In fact, the statement UK journalists agreed with most (82% agreeing) was that ‘interpretation is necessary to make sense of facts’. Here there is the recognition that news is not just about facts, but also what those facts mean in context. Interpretation becomes a necessary part of the reporting process.

But there is debate within the journalism world about how much of an interpretive layer should be put on top of facts. Scholars have argued that there has been an ‘interpretive turn’ in journalism – from the 1960s onwards in the US, in particular – which has increased the amount of explanation, interpretation, and opinion in the news (Barnhurst 2016). Some blame has been put on this interpretive turn for the decline in audience trust and increased political polarisation in the news media. While this is difficult to prove on the whole, it is part of the narrative.

Within this context, there is some variation in the belief about the necessity of interpretation among UK journalists. Interestingly, male journalists were, by 10pp, more likely to agree that interpretation is necessary than female journalists (87% agreed, while only 77% of female journalists agreed). Journalists with more years of work experience were also more likely to agree (see Figure 8.5). It may be that journalists with more experience are in job positions where more interpretation is asked of them, given their expertise, or because they have come to see the necessity for it. Fully 91% of journalists with the most experience (35+ years) said interpretation is necessary.

Figure 8.5

A different part of interpretive journalism – reporting that tries to make better sense of the world – is the recognition that some (or, maybe, quite a lot) of what we know or come to accept as truth is shaped by those in power. ‘History is written by the victors’ is an old adage about the ability of those in control to influence how the past is seen. When it comes to news and journalism, the powerful actors shaping what we know about the world are the politicians, judges, police, businesspeople, and others who have the ability to divulge or withhold important information.

Far fewer UK journalists (48%) agreed with the statement ‘truth is inevitably shaped by those in power’ than with the other interpretive statement (82%). The difference here may come down to the fact that journalists are not beholden to what powerful people say. They can dig deeper and try to uncover information, not simply letting the powerful dictate what is
seen as true.

Interestingly, there is a stark difference in beliefs between journalists of different political leanings. Journalists who leant left politically were far more likely to agree with the notion that truth is shaped by those in power (55%) than those who leant right (33%) (see Figure 8.6).

Younger journalists were also somewhat more likely to agree that truth is shaped by those in power. Among journalists aged 18–44, 51% agreed with the statement that truth is shaped by those in power, while 45% of those aged 45+ agreed.

8.4 Dogmatic beliefs

The last statement on epistemic beliefs included in the survey was the notion that ‘things are either true or false, there is no in-between’. This is the statement UK journalists agreed with the least (17%), by a large margin.

This is perhaps unsurprising, given the statement itself is so rigid. But it is phrased this way precisely so that it brings out those individuals whose thinking is rigid. I call this ‘dogmatic belief’ because this type of thinking is straightforward and black-and-white in nature (Pryor 2000).

Looking at the UK journalists who were more likely to hold this type of belief, they tended to be male (see Figure 8.7). The stronger dogmatic position among these journalists may reflect the type of assertiveness, self-certainty, and confidence in the beliefs of some men (Baxter Magolda 1992; Kessels 2013).

Figure 8.6

Figure 8.7

8.5 Conclusion

Of the belief statements presented to them, UK journalists in the survey mostly agreed that interpretation is necessary to make sense of facts (82% agreement). They also expressed strong belief in the possibility and value of objectivity (69% agreement). They were much less likely to view truth in black-and-white terms (17% agreement) or say that truth is inevitably shaped by those in power (48% agreement). They were overall split on whether it was possible for journalists to withhold their personal beliefs from reporting.

What do these findings mean for UK news and journalism? For one, they show how UK journalists express a strong belief in the need for interpretation – to add context and understanding to stories. This belief is perhaps, in part, born out of the need to help audiences understand the increasingly difficult issues of our time, such as climate change, war, and migration. Given the complexity of many issues, only a small number of UK journalists expressed a belief in black-and-white truths.

Although there has been consternation around claims of ‘bias’ in the news media, it seems that UK journalists see interpretation as very separate from opinion. Instead, there is agreement on the need to explain and contextualise stories. The need to connect with audiences and help them navigate the world may see newsrooms continue in their efforts to add interpretation, using formats such as explanatory journalism that have become popular with audiences.

Alongside the belief in the need for interpretation, there is also a continued commitment to the ideology and practice of objectivity. It has become a cornerstone of Western journalism, and associated concepts like impartiality continue to be reflected in, for example, the BBC’s most recent commitment to double down on impartiality following a debate over sports presenter Gary Lineker’s use of social media to criticise the Conservative government at the time.⁴ It is clear from BBC Director-General Tim Davie’s comments in response to this story that being objective and impartial are seen as clearly linked to trust: ‘Impartiality is the bedrock of the BBC. It’s utterly critical that looking forward people have total trust in the BBC,’ he said.

Objectivity seems likely to remain as a core belief, especially in light of declining audience trust in the UK news media (Newman et al. 2024), but there is a question as to whether support for strong objectivity is waning. There is some ambivalence among many UK journalists about the possibility of keeping their own beliefs fully out of the news. Just half (50%) of UK journalists agreed that they could withhold their personal beliefs from reporting, while the rest were unsure (27%) or disagreed (23%) that this is possible. This sits alongside the large number of journalists saying interpretation is necessary in the news.

Finally, just under half (48%) of UK journalists agreed that truth is shaped by those in power. Journalists are in a key position to question those in power and try to get at the truth – it’s their job. For this reason, it may be somewhat surprising that almost half of UK journalists believed that ‘truth is inevitably shaped by those in power’. But this almost cynical feeling could come down to the fact that those in political power, especially, are difficult for journalists to work with. If journalists are stonewalled, avoided, or impeded from getting information, it makes it hard for journalists to find out what is true, hence agreement with the idea of truth being shaped by the powerful. At the same time, powerful people are among the primary sources relied on by journalists to know what is going on, so they have an inherent ability to influence not just what journalists but all of us know.

Footnotes