Teaching Our Journal
The Non-Jewish Jew: Walter Lippmann and the Pitfalls of Journalistic ‘Detachment’
by Julien Gorbach, Ph.D.
In May 1933, amid the first major Nazi crackdown on Jews and in the smoking aftermath of the infamous book burnings across Germany, America’s most prominent political commentator lavished praise upon Adolf Hitler. Newspaper columnist Walter Lippmann had touted the Führer’s recent speech to the Reichstag as “a genuinely statesmanlike address” to encourage what Lippmann had hoped was a positive development: a nod towards finding a peaceful resolution to dangerously escalating tensions over the Treaty of Versailles. The columnist also urged Americans not to condemn all of Germany for its persecution of the Jews. Lippmann, who was Jewish himself, was trying to apply his trademark journalistic detachment. But in doing so, this figure journalism historians have called “the most wise and forceful spokesman for the ideal of objectivity” managed to outrage many in his day and ever since, and hardly for the first time in his career.
Lippmann’s consistent mishandling of what was then called “the Jewish question” highlights the tension between a journalist’s professional commitment to detachment and the contrary assertion that the best journalism “comes from somewhere and stands for something,” as National Public Radio’s Scott Simon once put it. The controversy is a story worth revisiting, not only because it yields fresh insight into objectivity by focusing on a key challenge for its most famous champion, but also because it offers clarity about Lippmann’s nuanced ideas of reporting and news that remain poorly understood, despite the extraordinary attention that already has been paid to his work.
This study traces the evolution of Lippmann’s thinking about journalism by focusing on a question that news professionals and scholars have wrestled with ever since: whether it is advisable, let alone possible, to “detach” facts from opinion, interpretation and moral judgments. To be fair, Lippmann was one of the original American Pragmatists, firmly committed to the idea that such absolutes and simplistic distinctions do not work in the real world. Indeed, historians have emphasized that the era of pure objectivity—when editors believed they could simply stick to “just the facts” and thus produced stories that read like a “grocer’s bill”—was already fading out before Lippmann’s time, by the 1890s. One could even argue that Lippmann was a pioneer not of objectivity, but of “interpretive journalism.”
Nevertheless, this study’s criticisms about Lippmann’s creed for journalism concern the matter of his emphasis. He embraced and then discarded many ideas during his most innovative and productive years, from 1920 to 1929, but the one principle that he kept going back to was journalistic detachment, or what he called “disinterestedness.” This became for him not only a foundational principle of journalism, but even a basis for his spirituality, for his whole creed of living. It was also his most significant legacy to journalists—a determination to rise above the din and remain neutral, unbiased, impartial, through highly disciplined self-examination. As writer Stephen Ward explains it: “The traditional language of journalistic objectivity is a normative language of self-denial, restraint, and exclusion. The reporter must, in an almost-Calvinist manner, keep a steady watch on his or her impulses to comment and interpret.”
But Lippmann fully developed his idea of “disinterestedness” in his 1929 book A Preface to Morals, and the timing turned out to be terrible. His ideas came to the fore as a creed for journalism just as the world confronted the dual threats of Hitler and Stalin. As D. Steven Blum argued: “Imposing as the intellectual arsenal assembled within the pages of A Preface to Morals … was, it was impotent against what Lippmann would later term the ‘ice-cold evil’ of totalitarianism. His implicit reluctance to grapple with political turmoil and violence in 1929 was a terrible liability by 1933: a philosophy that eschewed conflict, that expected prosperity, and international amity, was ill-suited to soothe a menacingly militaristic and impoverished world.”
This study concludes by asking how well-equipped we are today, with our current ideas about and standards for news and information. Is “fact-checking,” with that new industry’s insistence on “checkable facts,” just a return to where journalism started: the illusion that it is possible to cleave facts from opinion, interpretation and values? Is our press any better prepared to confront a “Big Lie” today than it was in Hitler’s era? And if we agree that concepts like “detachment” and “neutrality” are deeply problematic, do we then reject objectivity altogether? Or is there a way to conceptualize a new, “pragmatic objectivity,” that integrates points of view, interpretation and morality? What would that look like? And might there be a way to apply these standards not just to traditional news outlets, but to platforms that also disseminate news and information, like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, as well?
General questions for discussion
In reading this article:
- Which ideas of Lippmann’s struck you as most applicable and insightful about our journalism today? And which did you find most problematic?
- What do you make of the author’s criticism of Walter Lippmann’s “disinterestedness”? Do you agree that fundamentally, “Lippmann erred because his code of ethics was not sufficiently hard-nosed to meet the challenges of his day”? If yes, how might he have done his job differently? If no, then how would you defend him in the face of the criticisms in his time and now?
- The author argues that fact-checking enterprises like PolitiFact, FactCheck.org and the Washington Post’s Fact Checker are inadequate because journalists must puncture “the big lies” that are just as endemic to twenty-first century media as they were to that of the 1930s. Gorbach argues the focus on “checkable” facts does not work, because “the whole point about the ‘big’ lie is that it transcends little nuggets of data.” If you disagree, explain why. If you agree, explain that view, and explain also how fact checking might be replaced or improved upon.
- Should news reporters take a clear moral position on the issues that they cover? Argue why or why not. If you think they should, how might they do so without preaching to their audiences and telling people what to think about the news? And how do they assure the public that their moral positions will remain consistent? Is moral judgment incompatible with objectivity?
- Some people point to the cable news networks and the morass of online news to argue there is far too much bias today. Others agree with journalist Welsey Lowrey, who Tweeted: “American view-from-nowhere, ‘objectivity’-obsessed, both-sides journalism is a failed experiment. We need to fundamentally reset the norms of our field. The old way must go. We need to rebuild our industry as one that operates from a place of moral clarity.” How would you express the two sides of this argument, and what is your own view?
- At the end of his article, the author does not push for abandoning objectivity altogether, but instead sketches a possible alternative of “pragmatic objectivity.” Argue whether or not you found this understandable and convincing.
- At the same time that journalists are grappling with these questions, people are also demanding that platforms like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube do a much better and more proactive job of policing their content. The conventional wisdom is that we are dealing with entirely separate, unrelated issues: one problem is the news media, the other is social media. Explain whether you agree or disagree that they are separate, and what solutions can you offer for either, or both?
Exercise 1
The attached pdf provides materials and instruction for “The Newspaper Game,” an activity originally designed for 100-level students in a news literacy course. The exercise is based on observations Michael Schudson made about the two kinds of newspapers that existed in the early twentieth century: the “Information Model,” understood to be the more objective, fact-based and respectable type of newspaper, typified by the New York Times, and the sensational “Story Model,” typified by the Hearst and Pulitzer papers. The class is divided up into teams of news Sellers and Buyers, the latter of whom are given “fun money” with which to purchase stories. The teams of Information and Story Model Sellers compete to see who can draw the most cash, but the deck is stacked: a Story Model team just about always wins. The exercise exposes students to the kinds of news Americans consumed, and what drew them to it. The content and experience of the game teaches students about the character of the news in the early twentieth century: the style of headlines, layout and reporting, and the interests and concerns of both the press and the public. It also drives home the roles that both facts and storytelling played during the height of the Industrial Revolution.
Exercise 2
This attached pdf provides instructions for a poster game, also designed for a 100-level news literacy class, but perhaps more adaptable than Exercise 1 to students at different levels. It is based on the 1933 German parliamentary election that first brought the Nazis into power, and asks students to design campaign posters for the three competing parties: the Communists (KPD), the Socialist Democrats (SPD), and the National Socialists (NSDAP). Students compare their posters and vote on which one is the most effective. As with “The Newspaper Game,” the deck is again stacked: the Nazis always have the best posters. Students discuss tactics of propaganda and political messaging, but a clear lesson comes through: the simplest, rawest and most emotional message has a decided advantage. This underscores how difficult it is to communicate nuance and complicated truths in political contests. Also, the exercise offers an opportunity to introduce students to the concept of “the Big Lie” that is associated with Hitler and Goebbels. The pdf includes one version of the exercise with the historical references intact, and another version that swaps in local contemporary references. With the latter version, students are then challenged to identify what moment in history they are reenacting.
Exercise 3
This exercise has two simple parts. In Part One, students watch four clips of recent press conferences with President Donald Trump. In the first, the president berates NBC correspondent Peter Alexander. The second shows a confrontation between the press and Trump at his Bedminster Country Club, while the reporters are heckled by supporters who are club members. The third clip shows a clip between CBS correspondent Weijia Jiang and Trump. The fourth clip shows CBS correspondent Paula Reid questioning Trump aggressively.
Here are the clips:
Trump Berates Peter Alexander Over Coronavirus Question: ‘You’re A Terrible Reporter’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qw0T9RK0GrA
Trump defends crowd gathered for news conference in N.J. as ‘peaceful protesters’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8_H6wYuRc8
‘Keep your voice down’: Trump berates female reporter when questioned over Covid-19 response
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5c3wWNsmLA0
CBS correspondent Paula Reid confronts Trump
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAg8qL8McaY
Students are challenged with the following questions:
- Do any of these examples reflect the ideal of journalistic objectivity more closely than others, and if they do, why?
- In the examples where the journalists appear less objective, which, if any, standards of professionalism do they appear to uphold?
- For each different approach that you see, argue its merits. Then argue criticisms.
- Is it possible that there is a better way than any of this? Try to imagine what a more effective approach to coverage might be, and explain what that would look like.
Part Two of this assignment is a clip of the opening three and a half minutes of the documentary film Mike Wallace is Here, which illustrates the way he conducted his interviews.
Here is the clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTaX71lp4bk&t=62s
Students are challenged with these two questions:
- Is Mike Wallace’s approach compatible with the ideal objectivity? Argue why or why not.
- If it is, explain how this might be instructive to journalists today. If it is not, explain what alternative approach to journalism this represents.
Further reading
Walter Lippmann, Liberty and the News. (New York, Harcourt, Brace and Howe, 1920); Public Opinion (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1922); Walter Lippmann, The Phantom Public, with a new introduction by Wilfred M. McClay (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1993; and A Preface to Morals. (New York, Macmillan Co., 1929).
Michael Schudson, Discovering the News: A Social History of American Newspapers (New York: Basic Books, 1978), and Why Journalism Still Matters (Cambridge, UK: Polity, 2018).
Ronald Steel, Walter Lippmann and the American Century (Atlantic/Little, Brown, 1980).
- Steven Blum, Walter Lippmann, Cosmopolitanism in the Century of Total War (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1984), 85-94.
David T. Z. Mindich, Just the Facts: How “Objectivity” Came to Define American Journalism (New York: New York University Press, 1998).
Dan Schiller, Objectivity and the News: The Public and the Rise of Commercial Journalism (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1981)
Graves, Lucas. Deciding what’s true: The rise of political fact-checking in American journalism (Columbia University Press, 2016).
Steven R. Knowlton and Karen L. Freeman, eds. Fair & Balanced: A History of Journalistic Objectivity (Northport, Ala.: Vision Press, 2005).
Steven Maras, Objectivity in Journalism (Polity Press, 2013).
Stephen Ward Stephen J. A. Ward, The Invention of Journalism Ethics, Second Edition: The Path to Objectivity and Beyond (MQUP, 2015).
Brian McNair, “After Objectivity? Schudson’s sociology of journalism in the era of post-factuality,” Journalism Studies 18, no. 10 (2017): 1318-1333; and C. W. Anderson, “Knowledge, Expertise, And Professional Practice in the Sociology of Michael Schudson,” Journalism Studies 18, no. 10 (2017): 1307-1317. Both are from a special issue focusing on Schudson’s work.