The “truth” about “the truth”

When Tom Rosenstiel and Bill Kovach sat down to write The Elements of Journalism, they took their cue from the Project for Excellence in Journalism, where they both work, and the principles of journalism that the think-tank produced more than a decade ago. The nine principles were the result of consultations with journalists and citizens about what a news media code of conduct should look like.

Think of it as a journalistic constitution.

The first principle was simple — “Journalism’s first obligation is to the truth.” Here’s how Kovach and Rosenstiel (in Nieman Reports, 2001) explained this principle:

This first principle of journalism — its disinterested pursuit of truth — is ultimately what sets it apart from all other forms of communication…

Before I get into defining truth in a journalistic context, let’s talk about the overarching concept known as “The Truth.”

Truth is one of philosophy’s oldest subjects and remains an issue of great debate and, in a digital world, a subject of growing concern (Dahmen, 2009). The problem is actually defining what is truth. In a world where everyone sees, understands and interprets reality through their own lens or paradigm, how can we ever say that what we know is the truth and the whole truth? When someone states they know the truth, they are making what can be called “truth claims.” These are assertions that state something is right or wrong, good or bad, correct or incorrect. In a sense, it is an statement about absolutes, but it is also a statement based on facts that may change depending on how much information is available to us. Consider that at one point in human history, a truth claim of “the world is flat” was considered the truth until it was proven otherwise. From this perspective, there is no such thing as absolute truth.

The Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy sums up the debate about truth thusly:

The problem of truth is in a way easy to state: what truths are, and what (if anything) makes them true. But this simple statement masks a great deal of controversy. Whether there is a metaphysical problem of truth at all, and if there is, what kind of theory might address it, are all standing issues in the theory of truth.

Put another way, “while we might all agree that it is epistemologically naive to think we can know and communicate The Truth, some accounts of reality are closer approximations than others” (Fuller, 2001). Again, though, each account of reality is based on interpretation and subject to multiple truths. This multiplicity of truths leads to a conundrum: If there is no distinct truth and the whole truth is completely unattainable, can we ever really know the whole truth (Dahmen, 2009)? Should we even try to attain the unattainable? More importantly, if truth is unattainable, are journalists wasting their time saying what they report is “the truth”?

I can’t answer the first two of those questions, but I will attempt to answer the last question and I will start with one word: No. No journalists are not wasting their time. What they need to do is to be clearer about what “truth” they are reporting. And the truth of that truth matter is that journalistic truth is different than absolute truth.

Next time on Meet Press, I’ll define journalistic truth and explain how it evolved.