Judges vs. Journalists: Who Masters Objectivity?

Judges are supposed to be unbiased and objective. So are journalists. Is that possible in 2024? Do our preconceived biases seep into our work? Is objectivity even possible? Every judge comes to the bench with his/her own life experiences, biases, and personality, yet the judge is expected to put all of that aside to objectively determine all issues. The same is true of journalists. In court, there is the necessity to hear both sides of a legal argument before the judge decides a case. Are journalists required to always hear out both sides before publishing an article or is it sufficient to just print what one side says…such as in a presidential rally? Is fact checking required before publication or after-the-fact? In today’s episode of Next Witness…Please we explore the actual neutrality of judges and how the objectivity required of judges is often like the objectivity aspired to by journalists. This discussion was prompted by the recent controversial turmoil caused by the National Association of Black Journalists inviting Donald Trump to speak to its annual convention in Chicago and Trump’s bombastic performance.