A free society requires journalists work like scientists, not artists

In reality, there is no spectrum between art and science, their respective goals and methods make them mutually exclusive: art gives us personal edification, science gives us collective knowledge. If we want a free and functional society, journalism cannot work like art, it has to work like science.”

Cecilia Dobbs, a product and audience development strategist

Is journalism an art or a science? That’s the core question in a critique of the “Amazonification” of The Washington Post published in the Columbia Journalism Review earlier this year. The authors posit that billionaire owner Jeff Bezos, with his focus on data analysis and efficiency, is simply “the latest in a long line of business minds flummoxed by a long-standing conundrum” about the nature of journalism and the necessary conditions for its production.

To make their case, the authors present two contrasting newsroom management scenarios. If journalism is a science, they write, “then the task of managers is straightforward: Calibrate the proper inputs to maximize output. Implement the implementations that mathematical progress demands.” Whereas, if journalism is art, “then a newsroom becomes not a factory floor to be streamlined but an intellectual salon to be nurtured. Writers become stars to be encouraged, not labor units to be Taylorized.”

“The reality,” they conclude, “is that journalism is far more art than science.”

If you’re a journalist who associates science with coldness and sterility and art with warmth and fertility, or if you feel you’re more suited to intellectual salons than factory floors — because you’re a star not a cog — these imagined newsrooms scenarios might emotionally resonate. In other words, if you share the authors’ sentiments, then the claim that journalism is more art than science may feel true. And many journalists do feel it’s true (see more perspectives here, here and here).

But is it true? I would argue that it objectively isn’t: the goals and methods of science are a better analogue for the purpose and practice of journalism, and no one who believes journalism has a critical role to play in society could reasonably argue otherwise.

But we can’t have a meaningful discussion about whether X is more A than B without establishing the terms of comparison. Since what’s at issue here is how journalism works (or should work), let’s start with how art works, and what its goals and methods are.

The goal of art, in a word, is “expression.” Every artist, regardless of their medium or subject, aims to convey what we might call “internal truths” about how they see or otherwise experience the world. This makes the artist the sole arbiter of whether their work is complete and coherent, and there are no rules for how art can or cannot be created (or how it should or shouldn’t be done). The criteria for whether something is art rests with its creator’s intent: If they’re trying to make art, it’s art. We might say that the only formal standard for designating someone a “professional” artist is whether they can make a living doing it.

Because of its inward focus, whether art achieves its aim is entirely subjective. The creator will have their view, and the rest of us — the observers or the “audience” — will have ours. To the extent that the artist thinks about us, it is because they want to make us feel something. They hope their expression will rattle our nerves, tug at our heartstrings, or if you’re Kafka, be an “axe for the frozen sea inside us.” The result is that the same poem, painting, novel or film might feel deeply relevant and immersive to some of us and entirely foreign or inaccessible to others.

Now, let’s consider how science works. The goal of science, in a word, is “explanation.” Every scientist strives to identify what we might call “external truths” about how everyone experiences the “material” world, how the many levels and layers of our universe knit together and play out. Since a comprehensive explanation of the universe is necessarily a collective endeavor, science is bound and governed by a set of standards and practices that dictate whether an explanation can be said to be “true” or at the very least, “not yet false.”

What enables scientists working in different locations, languages and lifetimes to contribute to this shared body of knowledge about our universe is their adherence to “scientific methods.” In the simplest terms, this means they develop and present their explanations (hypotheses) in terms that can be validated or invalidated by something externally visible or measurable (evidence). This process makes scientific explanations (metaphysically) “objective,” as opposed to the colloquial, and impossible, notion of a person “setting aside” their personal view. In other words, individuals can’t be objective, but they can produce explanations that are.

However, it’s important to note that being “objective” and being “true” are not the same thing. Scientific methods do not produce “the truth” or “the reality” about our universe; rather, they produce “objective” explanations for our experience of the universe, given the evidence currently available to us. This is why the history of science is full of explanations that were discarded or revised on account of new evidence, and it is in the attempt to refine our current understanding — through exploration and discourse — that we continuously develop better “objective” explanations of how our universe works.

Is journalism an art or a science?

Using the terms outlined above, if journalism is a science, then it is part of a collective and ongoing endeavor to develop “external truths” about our experiences of the “material” universe. For work to be considered journalistic, it must adhere to standards of practice. One of these standards is “objectivity,” meaning that journalists strive to frame their explanations in terms that can be externally validated or invalidated. These are the grounds on which journalists and journalism organizations can hold themselves and others accountable for the completeness and coherence of their claims, and through which they can foster meaningful debates about how our society currently works — and how it could work differently.

In contrast, if journalism is art, then its practitioners are individual creators focused on personal expression. There aren’t (and shouldn’t be) rules or standards of practice for how journalism can or cannot be done and whether it achieves its aim is entirely subjective. Journalists will have their view and the rest of us will have ours. To the extent that journalists think about their audience, it is to make them feel something. The same article or video may feel right to some people and wrong to many others; it’s all subjective, simply a matter of taste and preferences.

What this exercise demonstrates is that, for journalism to be a “fourth estate,” its contributors have to work like scientists. Claiming otherwise is trying to have it both ways: asking the public to value journalism as a source of objective explanations while simultaneously wanting to work as though journalism is a subjective endeavor. In reality, there is no spectrum between art and science, their respective goals and methods make them mutually exclusive: art gives us personal edification, science gives us collective knowledge. If we want a free and functional society, journalism cannot work like art, it has to work like science.

Cecilia Dobbs is a product and audience development strategist with over 20 years of experience working in news and information sectors in both the U.S. and U.K. She was previously vice president of product for the Guardian US, as well as director of digital strategy at Fox News. She holds an M.A. in science journalism from NYU.