Does Truth in Journalism Exist?

"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." - Winston Churchill 

Journalism's first obligation is to the truth; at least that's what I keep reading . . .

But what is truth?  And how well does modern American journalism tell the truth?   

 Defining truth is much easier said than done.  Wikipedia gives some good insight into truth (here) and says truth is "being in a state of accord with fact or reality."  The problem arises because each person lives their own reality.  So how can a journalist profess to speak truth when the journalist's reality is different than, say, a teacher's reality? Each person has the ability to interpret events through their own perspective, drawing on important details based on their own values.  These interpretations become truth in the mind of the person.

Thus, truth becomes subjective.

 So, are we basing the idea of truth from spiritual truth, moral truth, allegorical truth, or literal truth?  Each interpretation is subjective because there are so many possibilities.  So what are journalists supposed to do about sharing the truth?


The "Elements of Journalism" by Kovach and Rosenstiel says it best: 

"This is what journalism is after -- a practical or functional form of truth.  It is not truth in the absolute or philosophical sense.  It is not the truth of a chemical equation.  Journalism can -- and must -- pursue the truths by which we can operate on a day-to-day basis. . . 'We strive for coverage that aims as much as possible to present the reader with enough information to make up his or her own mind.  That's our fine ideal.'" 

So how well does modern American journalism tell the truth?  

They tell the truth as well as they can.  Most journalists seem to try and portray accurate facts and enlightening background knowledge to give the readers the opportunity to form their own opinions about the truth.  We need to give them the credit they deserve.

Finding the truth is process, not an event.