Washington Post Says News Shouldn't Be 'Objective,' Should Focus on 'Lived Experiences' Instead

Objective news is no longer an important part of modern newsrooms, according to a Washington Post opinion piece.

What used to be an inarguable part of journalistic integrity is now a relic of an unfortunately “White” editorial past, apparently.

That’s according to Leonard Downie Jr., a former Post executive editor and current professor at Arizona State’s journalism school.

Downie wrote a lengthy piece explaining in great detail that previous, accepted standards of journalism are no longer applicable.

He quoted many influential newsroom leaders, who all repeated the same, horrifying, sentiments.

One example was a former Associated Press editor who said the standards of objectivity are no longer relevant.

“That standard seems to be White, educated, fairly wealthy. … And when people don’t feel like they find themselves in news coverage, it’s because they don’t fit that definition,” according to Kathleen Carroll.

Downie references that “truly accurate reporting“ may focus more on the backgrounds and points of view of modern “journalists of color.”

“More and more journalists of color and younger White reporters, including LGBTQ+ people, in increasingly diverse newsrooms believe that the concept of objectivity has prevented truly accurate reporting informed by their own backgrounds, experiences and points of view.”

Truth, you see, is now relative to someone’s race, ethnicity or sexual preferences. It’s no longer based on objective facts.

Perhaps this purposeful dismissal of objectivity as a basic journalistic premise is why Washington Post layoffs have become a recurring story.

Of course, the Post also claims to care about the death of democracy, while repeatedly "platforming" election deniers like Hillary Clinton.

Objective News Pales in Comparison to 'Lived Experiences'

Just recently, The Post had to issue a “clarification” after blatantly misrepresenting the implications of a Florida law on materials in schools.


Maybe the explanation is that the objective reality of what the bill said conflicted with the reporters own “backgrounds, experiences and points of view.”

The piece continued with many other remarkably concerning assertions. One of which is that “journalists” primarily see themselves as activists on their favored issues.

"Many journalists want to make a difference on such issues as climate change, immigration and education,” said Sally Buzbee, the current Post executive editor.

Similarly, the executive editor of the New York Times explained that they alone can determine falsehoods and make accusations of wrongdoing.

“But I think it’s true that, when the evidence is there, we should not default to some mealy-mouthed, so-called neutral language that some people see this as a falsehood, while others do not. When the evidence is there, we should be clear and direct with our audience that we don’t think there are multiple sides to this question, this is a falsehood. And the person repeating this falsehood over and over is guilty of lying,” said Joseph Kahn.

Confusingly, Kahn didn’t mention The Times own blatant falsehoods on issues like the Russian collusion hoax, the efficacy of masks, or a multitude of other mistakes.

USA Today’s editor in chief was similarly dismissive of objective truth, saying they “have found more value in diverse people’s lived experiences.”

Another example is Chalkbeat, websites devoted to covering education. The co-founder and chief executive of that network said they’ve adopted “antiracism as a core value.”

“We talk about it a lot,” Elizabeth Green explained. “Is this what an antiracist news organization would do?”

Pervasive Progressive Bias

The obvious implication throughout the article is that current prevailing progressive opinions are inarguably true and accurate.

As such, presenting both sides of an issue like climate change is not necessary, or could even be doing readers a disservice. Because, you see, the left is so unequivocally correct on climate change that there can be no other truthful interpretation.

The “lived experiences” or nonsensical “antiracism” agenda of young journalists are far more important than presenting facts and letting readers decide for themselves.

It’s hard to determine what’s more concerning about this article. That these influential editors are so comfortable removing the mask, or that there was no disagreement among them.

Downie explains that newsrooms should reflect modern diversity, whether economic, racial or otherwise. But of course, one category he neglects to mention is diversity of thought, of opinion, of political persuasion.

Why isn’t political diversity more important?

Because only one side has a monopoly on objective “truth.” And it’s the far left’s. Objective truth is now what they decide it is. And given the viewpoints of the next wave of “journalists,” it’s only going to get worse.

Written by

Ian Miller is a former award watching high school actor, author, and long suffering Dodgers fan. He spends most of his time golfing, traveling, reading about World War I history, and trying to get the remote back from his dog.