https://x.com/derrickevans4wv/status/1935122285389824357?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
Back in the previous century, in the very first class I took on my way to a degree in Broadcasting/Journalism/Mass Media, made one thing perfectly clear. It was beaten into us that reporters were to be UNBIASED in their reporting. That OBJECTIVITY in reporting was the cornerstone and bedrock of journalism and our foremost goal.
A few years later, as my cousin was getting her similar degree, I asked her why she wanted to go into journalism. Her answer, "I want to change things and affect outcomes.". Which seems (at least somewhat) to contradict the mandate of UNBIASED OBJECTIVITY. Obviously OBJECTIVE UNBIASED journalism can bring change, but that sort of change is not agenda driven. The change was not the purpose of the journalism, but a byproduct.
When an allegedly UNBIASED and OBJECTIVE reporter for one of the "revered" MSM outlets that does "real journalism", says this publicly, I'm thinking that the days of OBJECTIVE and UNBIASED journalism are dwindling if not gone.
I've mentioned that my cousin is involved in a project intended to increase trust in journalists before. I'd argue that the best way to accomplish this would be to return to OBJECTIVE and UNBIASED reporting as the standard journalistic practice.
An interesting article on the topic, objective and informative.
ReplyDeleteAs to your cousin, many of us believe that accurately, fairly reporting the news, attempting to be as objective as possible, IS a way to change things and affect change.
In a world of fake news, OAN, WND, and other anti-journalistic "sources," good, reliable, factual reporting is one of the best ways to effect change.
It's refreshing when you ignore the point and simply spew your talking points.
ReplyDeleteIt's doubly refreshing when you decide to speak for others who you don't know.
It's triply refreshing when you literally repeat something I said, pretending that I didn't say it.
The problem of "fake news" and non "good, reliable, factual reporting" isn't limited to the sources you don't like. Hell, you haven't even proven your claims about the sources you malign. The problem is exponentially worse when the sources you "revere" abandon objective and unbiased reporting in favor of shilling for the government or candidate(s).
I'm all for reporting the facts, and only the facts, then letting the chips fall where they may. That's journalism based on what I learned decades ago. What I have a problem with is reporting in ways designed to push specific change or advance an agenda. Especially when it comes from the "broadcast" sources.
I'm smart enough to know the slants and biases of non "broadcast" entities and to evaluate their reporting accordingly. It is obvious that CNN (for example) slants heavily to the left, yet I still expect objective and unbiased news reporting. Unfortunately, we've seen ample instances where the MSM has abandoned objective and unbiased reporting for advocacy for a candidate or agenda.
When a news reporter for ABC news announces that his job is "not to be objective", even you should be able to agree that a line has been crossed.
ReplyDeletehttps://stanforddaily.com/2020/08/20/should-journalists-rethink-objectivity-stanford-professors-weigh-in/
ReplyDeleteSorry. I realized the article didn't paste in my first comment.
Interesting opinions.
Sure, as long as your default position is that objectivity gets in the way of telling the story you want to tell.
DeleteThe two examples I found interesting.
1. BLM. The notion that expressing the general sentiment that "black lives matter" is not problematic. I'd argue that expressing the sentiment is absolutely fine, expressing the sentiment using the exact name of an advocacy group is an endorsement of BLM. Given what we know about BLM, I'd think that any journalist would want to ignore even the appearance of endorsing the origination.
2. White nationalists. I may be wrong, but simply writing a straightforward, factual, piece on the actual actions and quoted words of "white nationalists" and allowing the readers to determine what they think is the appropriate way to handle that story. Why would a journalist not want to tell a factually accurate, balanced, truthful story as opposed to slanting it to make a political or social point? Are the consumers of journalism too stupid to make up their own minds?
"When a news reporter for ABC news announces that his job is "not to be objective"
ReplyDeleteFailing to provide the text and context is neither fair nor accurate. You could learn something from that reporter.
Half a truth is sometimes a whole lie.
You should know, you do this often enough.
Delete