This article starts from the observation that the concept of objectivity, along with its twin sentries ‘balance’ and ‘impartiality’, is generally regarded as a cornerstone of journalism and, consequently, of journalism research. The aim of this article is to show that the analytical ideal of objectivity, instead of enabling, in fact inhibits media pluralism research. The first section focuses on unveiling the ideological nature of this ideal by relating it both socio-historically and analytically to a post-ideological and consensual understanding of society. Since we find this ideal only allowing for the evaluation of journalism within the limits of social consensus (pluralism ‘within the box’), the second section seeks for alternative analytical concepts to evaluate journalism about and beyond the limits of social consensus (pluralism ‘outside the box’). To illustrate the difference between both approaches, the popular concept of partisan media bias is juxtaposed to the alternative framework of de/politicization.
AttonC (2002) News cultures and new social movements: Radical journalism and the mainstream media. Journalism Studies3(4): 491–505.
2.
BeckU (1992) Risk Society towards a New Modernity. London: SAGE.
3.
BellD (1968 [1960]) The end of ideology in the West. In: WaxmanCI (ed.) The End of Ideology Debate. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, pp. 87–105.
4.
BenhabibS (ed.) (1996) Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
5.
CammaertsB (2009) Radical pluralism and free speech in online public spaces: The case of North Belgian extreme right discourses. International Journal of Cultural Studies12(6): 555–575.
6.
CarpentierN (2005) Identity, contingency and rigidity: The (counter-) hegemonic constructions of the identity of the media professional. Journalism6(2): 199–219.
7.
CarpentierNCammaertsB (2006) Hegemony, democracy, agonism and journalism: An interview with Chantal Mouffe. Journalism Studies7(6): 964–975.
8.
CarpentierNTrioenM (2010) The particularity of objectivity: A post-structuralist and psychoanalytical reading of the gap between objectivity-as-a-value and objectivity-as-a-practice in the 2003 Iraqi war coverage. Journalism11(3): 311–328.
9.
CarvalhoA (2007) Ideological cultures and media discourses on scientific knowledge: Re-reading news on climate change. Public Understanding of Science16(2): 223–243.
10.
CurranJ (2002) Media and Power. London: Routledge.
11.
DahlbergL (2005) The Habermasian public sphere: Taking difference seriously?Theory and Society34(2): 111–136.
12.
DahlbergL (2007a) Rethinking the fragmentation of the cyberpublic: From consensus to contestation. New Media & Society9(5): 827–847.
13.
DahlbergL (2007b) The internet and discursive exclusion: From deliberative to agonistic public sphere theory. In: DahlbergLSiaperaE (eds) Radical Democracy and the Internet: Interrogating Theory and Practice. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 128–147.
14.
D’AlessioDAllenM (2000) Media bias in presidential elections: A meta-analysis. Journal of Communication50(4): 133–156.
15.
DeuzeM (2005) What is journalism? Professional identity and ideology of journalists reconsidered. Journalism6(4): 442–464.
16.
DowneyJTitleyGToynbeeJ (2014) Ideology critique: The challenge for media studies. Media, Culture & Society36(6): 878–887.
17.
DugganL (2003) The Twilight of Equality: Neoliberalism, Cultural Politics and the Attack on Democracy. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
18.
EntmanR (1989) Democracy without Citizens. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
19.
FowlerR (1991) Language in the News: Discourse and Ideology in the Press. London: Routledge.
20.
FukuyamaF (1989) Have We Reached the End of History?Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
21.
FukuyamaF (1992) The End of History and the Last Man. New York: Simon & Schuster.
22.
GentzkowMShapiroJM (2006) Media bias and reputation. Journal of Political Economy114(2): 280–316.
23.
GiddensA (1994) Beyond Left and Right: The Future of Radical Politics. Oxford: Polity Press.
24.
GroelingT (2013) Media bias by the numbers: Challenges and opportunities in the empirical study of partisan news. Annual Review of Political Science16: 129–151.
25.
GrosecloseTMilyoJ (2005) A measure of media bias. The Quarterly Journal of Economics120(4): 1191–1237.
26.
HaberRA (1968) The end of ideology as ideology. In: WaxmanCI (ed.) The End of Ideology Debate. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, pp. 182–205.
27.
HabermasJ (1996) Between Facts and Norms (trans. RehgW). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
28.
HackettRA (1984) Decline of a paradigm? Bias and objectivity in news media studies. Critical Studies in Media Communication1(3): 229–259.
29.
HafezK (2002) Journalism ethics revisited: A comparison of ethics codes in Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, and Muslim Asia. Political Communication19(2): 225–250.
30.
HallS (1982) The rediscovery of ideology: Return of the repressed in media studies. In: GurevitchMBennettTCurranJ (eds) Culture, Society and the Media. London: Methuen, pp. 56–90.
31.
HallSCritcherCJeffersonT. (1978) Policing the Crisis: Mugging, the State and Law and Order. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
HodgesDC (1968 [1967]) The end of ‘the end of ideology’. In: WaxmanCI (ed.) The End of Ideology Debate. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, pp. 373–388.
34.
HonigB (1993) Political Theory and the Displacement of Politics. New York: Cornell University Press.
35.
HowarthD (2000) Discourse. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
36.
JacobyR (1999) The End of Utopia: Politics and Culture in an Age of Apathy. New York: Basic Books.
37.
JonesJP (2013) Toward a new vocabulary for political communication research. International Journal of Communication7: 510–530.
38.
JørgensenMPhillipsL (2002) Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method. London: SAGE.
39.
KarppinenK (2007) Making a difference to media pluralism: A critique of the pluralistic consensus in European media policy. In: CammaertsBCarpentierN (eds) Reclaiming the Media: Communication Rights and Democratic Media Roles. Bristol: Intellect Books, pp. 9–30.
40.
LaclauEMouffeC (1985) Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. London: Verso Books.
41.
LichtenbergJ (2005) In defense of objectivity revisited. In: CurranJGurevitchM (eds) Mass Media and Society. London: Arnold, pp. 216–231.
42.
LinYRBagrowJPLazerD (2011) More voices than ever? Quantifying media bias in networks. Proceedings of the fifth international AAAI conference on weblogs and social media (ICWSM 2011), Barcelona, Spain, 17–21 July 2011, pp. 193–200. Available at: http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.1227
43.
LipsetSM (1968 [1960]) The end of ideology? In: WaxmanCI (ed.) The End of Ideology Debate. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, pp. 69–86.
44.
MaeseeleP (2010) On neo-luddites led by ayatollahs: The frame matrix of the GM food debate in northern Belgium. Environmental Communication4(3): 277–300.
45.
MaeseeleP (2013) Communication, media and genetically modified food: A politicized reading. Catalan Journal of Communication & Cultural Studies5(2): 183–199.
46.
MaeseeleP (2015) Beyond the post-political zeitgeist. In: HansenACoxR (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Environment and Communication. New York: Routledge, pp. 429–443.
47.
MaeseelePRaeijmaekersDvan der SteenL. (2015) In Flanders Fields: De/politicization and democratic debate on a GM potato field trial controversy in news media. Environmental Communication. Epub ahead of print 16October. DOI: 10.1080/17524032.2015.1094102.
48.
MindichDT (1998) Just the Facts: How Objectivity Came to Define American Journalism. New York: New York University Press.
49.
MouffeC (2005) On the Political. London: Routledge.
50.
MouffeC (2013) Agonistics: Thinking the World Politically. London: Verso Books.
51.
NordenstrengK (1995) The journalist: A walking paradox. In: LeeP (ed.) The Democratization of Communication. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, pp. 114–129.
52.
NovakM (1968) An end of ideology. In: WaxmanCI (ed.) The End of Ideology Debate. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, pp. 389–397.
53.
PepermansYMaeseeleP (2014) Democratic debate and mediated discourses on climate change: From consensus to de/politicization. Environmental Communication8(2): 216–232.
54.
PhelanS (2007) The discursive dynamics of neo-liberal consensus: Irish broadsheet editorials and the privatization of Eircom. Journal of Language and Politics6(1): 7–28.
55.
PhelanSDahlbergL (2011) Discourse theory and critical media politics: An introduction. In: DahlbergLPhelanS (eds) Discourse Theory and Critical Media Politics. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1–40.
56.
RaeijmaekersDMaeseeleP (2014) Ideologisch pluralisme in Vlaamse nieuwsmedia: de Belgische regeringsformatie 2010–2011 [Ideological pluralism in Flemish news media: The 2010–2011 government formation]. Tijdschrift voor Communicatiewetenschap42(2): 145–164.
57.
SassoonAS (1988) The Gramsci boom continues. History Workshop Journal26(1): 213–214.
58.
SchudsonM (2001) The objectivity norm in American journalism. Journalism2(2): 149–170.
59.
SchudsonM (2011) The Sociology of the News, 2nd edn.New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.
60.
SkovsgaardMAlbækEBroP. (2013) A reality check: How journalists’ role perceptions impact their implementation of the objectivity norm. Journalism. Epub ahead of print 13April2012. DOI: 10.1177/1464884912442286.
61.
TaylorLWillisA (1999) Media Studies: Texts, Institutions and Audiences. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
62.
ThompsonJB (1990) Ideology and Modern Culture: Critical Social Theory in the Era of Mass Communication. Cambridge: Polity Press.
63.
Van den BergHVan der VeerCG (1986) Ideologie en massamedia. Amsterdam: VU Boekhandel.
64.
Van DijkTA (2009) News, discourse, and ideology. In: Wahl-JorgensenKHanitzschT (eds) The Handbook of Journalism Studies. London: Routlegde, pp. 191–204.
65.
Van ZoonenL (1994) Feminist Media Studies, vol. 9. London: SAGE.
66.
VerstraetenH (1980) Pers en macht: een dossier over de geschreven pers in België. Leuven: Kritak.
67.
WaxmanCI (1968) Introduction. In: WaxmanCI (ed.) The End of Ideology Debate. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, pp. 3–9.
WesterståhlJ (1983) Objective news reporting. Communication Research10: 403–424.
70.
YoungIM (1996) Communication and the other: Beyond deliberative democracy. In: BenhabibS (ed.) Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political, vol. 31. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 120–135.
71.
ZelizerB (2004) When facts, truth, and reality are god-terms: On journalism’s uneasy place in cultural studies. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies1(1): 100–119.
