tiernanogmuse

submitted by @tiernanogphoto

I really enjoyed the recent In Conversation with Fern, Pete, and Heiko (edit: to be found here) where they talked about the ‘intersection’ of art, journalism, story, and photography, exploring some of the underlying philosophical tenets of each, thanks guys. I did have to take umbrage at some point, I hope you’ll forgive the following rant: D.

As somebody who once aspired to be a news journalist and ended up teaching social science, I couldn’t help but cringe a bit when I heard Fern say, and others agree, that ‘there is no such thing as objectivity.’ It reminded me of the attitude coming along some of my students that sociology is all opinion, therefore no one’s opinion is really any better than anyone else’s, so what’s the point of even having a social science? Plus we live in a world where the many, maybe the majority of the elected officials of its most powerful nation believe in ‘alternative facts’ or none at all.

Now I realize what Fern said was overall much better, and it may be “just” a matter of semantics here, but I’m not willing to give up on the term ‘objectivity’ just yet. In his vein, I love how some feminist theorists offer “intersubjectivity” as an alternative. They understandably want to move away from a male, Eurocentric mode that has dominated everything until recently. As the ‘antidote’ they emphasize the importance of multiple viewpoints. Related is ‘standpoint theory’ mentioned by Fern (http://www.iep.utm.edu/fem-stan/).

Yet I believe that, before you can really understand such a theory, you first have to understand objectivity. I agree with Fern — if what he really means is, ‘there is no such thing as being completely objective.’ But one can certainly be more objective. No scientist, even a so-called ‘hard’ scientist like a physicist, would ever say they are ‘completely objective.’ And, contrary to what some think, being objective does not mean having no strong emotions, like the vulcan Spock of Star Trek. It means following a process, a method, using certain practices and tools, and recognizing all tools are flawed. No telescope is perfect, one must take into account it’s biases.I sometimes joke the social sciences should be called the ‘hard’ sciences because our tools are more biased :). I’m not just talking surveys here, I mean ourselves, as people.

When making direct observations and drawing conclusions, social scientists are inescapably influenced by our biases toward those in society of which we are very much a part. Some even recognize this by encouraging a ‘reflexive statement at the start of a research paper, allowing us to get to know the researcher, not just his or her research.News journalism also strives to be objective. It has a greater impact on society, considered by many central to creating an informed citizenry, in crisis in the age of social media destroying its business model, compounded by Fox News, leading to a bizarre situation where head of the so-called free world takes his cues from “Fox and Friends.” Fox makes a mockery of the ways journalists strive to be objective, often taking quotes out of context, distorting its meaning. Good journalists truly seek out multiple standpoints/perspectives. I also believe they, like social scientists, should be ‘up front and open’ about their own standpoint/ ‘biases,’ so others can judge where they are coming from.

I think the ‘New York Times model’ of reporters pretending to be without opinions is actually dishonest and therefore less objective — I suspect this is what Fern meant with his statement about objectivity? Journalists also have to do something social scientists do not, they have to present their work to the wider public, and to do so well they have to understand the craft and art of good story telling. But what is a story? For a news reporter, it has clear elements: who, what, where, why, how. A news reporter must assemble these AND ‘grab’ the readers attention.

Like photography, it is part craft (knowing how to assemble these pieces), and part art, doing so in a way that is appealing to the sensibilities of the readers, using a kind of shorthand to evoke certain reactions from those readers, rather than ‘spelling everything out,’ for example. On the other hand, fiction writers (one of my other hobbies) think of stories differently, even though they are related. Fiction writers know that ‘real life’ rarely if ever follows the ‘story structure’ that most readers find engaging. Few people experience the kinds of rising tension and drama resulting in a conflict resolution in a way that is really satisfying.

Some followers of fiction (See screenwriting guru Robert McKee) even go so far as saying there something resembling a ‘formula,’ like in Casablanca, for the ‘perfect’ story. What is going on here? I would love to see social scientists explore the ‘Casablanca’ model more, as I believe certain story structures are more ‘deeply sedimented’ in our modern society. Stories used to be very different, just look at fairy tales. It’s a hard think to get ‘objective’ data on. But social scientists do have a partial answer; stories aren’t just entertainment, they play a key role in helping us learn, maintain, and pass down to the next generation our culture. Embedded in our stories are lessons, like who’s likely to win or lose? Who are the ‘good guys’ and bad guys? And so on.This becomes more apparent in a ‘culture war,’ like the one today between defenders and opponents of the president. We see competing narratives/frames suggesting different kinds of ‘cause and effect.’

For example: ‘Building a wall between the US and Mexico will help stop illegal aliens,’ versus ‘A wall will have no effect; the influx of undocumented workers is driven by a demand for cheap, easily exploited labor and poverty in those countries, the solution is instead giving them legal status, the ability to organize unions, and a clear path to citizenship, as well as encouraging development in those countries.’ Embedded in each of these ‘frames’ (an actual term used by some sociologists), or evoked by each of these frames, is a kind of story. ‘Evoked’ maybe a better word because rarely do you see all the elements of a story in the framing of an issue. A ‘frame’ draws on two metaphors. Like a snapshot, it involves a choice of what goes in the shot and what is left out. The other metaphor is more like a tree branch, a frame organizes its elements like a tree branch does its leaves.Which brings me to photography. Good photo journalism (and I loved how the In Conversation guys used the Eddie Addams Viet Nam War photo of a chief of police shooting a suspected Viet Cong) evokes a story. To do so well, such shots must also satisfy the demands of craft and art. They should both be visually appealing or striking, and evoke a story.

But is this true of other kinds of photography? I do primarily landscapes, rarely will you see a ‘who’ or even an artifact of a who, except perhaps a trail. Do these shots evoke stories? I have one follower who said recently a shot reminded them of times back in the ‘Badger State.’ Then there’s @mdeanstrauss , who once informed me I had captured the ongoing ‘battle’ between two kinds of trees. So I guess they can. But they are not near as likely as a busy street scene with multiple people, which might evoke multiple stories, and I love seeing them!

OK, that’s my rant, hope it helps you think about these fascinating concepts. Let me know if you’d like hear more such rambling.