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.
DeleteFirst, ignoring Dan because he is not objective himself in reporting his anecdotal stories of "the historically oppressed" and other of his fairy tales, and that he's incredibly the opposite of objective when he disparages sources like OAN as if he ever actually consumes their product while himself shilling for the legacy media outlets I've proven are less than objective far too often, I will instead address the topic of the post.
ReplyDeleteI've read Terry Moran's post (side bar: I've had to look up his name several times just to write this comment, because he's a nobody as a network "journalist". That is, he hadn't proven himself of such stature that his arrogance and pomposity alone justifies his dismissal) and of course he's exposed himself as a moron in the way he expressed his hatred of Trump and Miller. I don't recall if he posted on his personal social media site, or on one which is an ABC social media presence. If the latter, that makes his lack of objectivity worse than it would be if he did on his personal site, in my opinion. Here's why:
He expressed his personal opinion, as stupid and false as it is. His words as quoted in the link (I didn't bother playing the attendant video) are not something with which I actually disagree. So, as you're a student of the industry, I would presume that any expression of one's opinion, be it on the job or off, would be counter to the principles of objectivity by which a journalist is to do his job. In other words, were you taught that as a journalist, it doesn't matter the context in which you expressed an opinion, a journalist should just keep his opinions to himself. I get that reporting must be simply "the facts and nothing but the facts" as Joe Friday used to say. But the dumbass wasn't reporting a story on his social media post. He was just expressing his abjectly asinine opinion.
What say you?
I say, based on my education, that the goal is to be as Truthful, accurate, unbiased, and objective as humanly possible in your news reporting. When you're "off the job" it's a different deal entirely. However, I'd argue that what one does "off the lob" can and does affect how people perceive you "on the job".
DeletePart of the problem is that these standards really only apply to those on "public airwaves". Historically, it's been understood that it was perfectly acceptable for newspapers to have an ideological slant, especially on the editorial page. Yet, the expectation still existed that their news coverage would be unbiased and objective. Enter the "public airwaves" and all of a sudden people realized that using the "public airwaves" was essentially a public trust and that being objective and unbiased in news coverage was essential. Now in the world of the internet and cable, we're back to more of how newspapers functioned.
In short, actual news reporting should be as objective and unbiased as humanly possible.
In a more general sense, and I think we've discussed this on more than one occasion, those sources Dan pretends aren't professional because he hates people, they are biased of course. But bias doesn't equate to subjective reporting of the facts of a story being reported. The honchos at the networks choose which stories they feel are most important for the public to know and that's also subjective. But still, those stories have facts which must be presented in full, with any caveats for that which isn't confirmed presented as well (I would think). The Jan 6 protests should never have been described as an insurrection, but to report that lying Democrats described it that way is another thing. A responsible news source, in my opinion, should give a definition of what an insurrection actually is, and then report on whether or not the protest qualified, as that is setting the record straight. The same is true with claims that Trump incited it, and to omit his actual words which belied the claims is to promote the claims and is bad journalism.
ReplyDeleteDan's beloved sources were complicit in promoting the Dem narrative about Jan 6, just as they were in promoting the "Russian Collusion Hoax" and so many other stories favorable to Dems and disparaging of Trump and/or the GOP. Lying is what Dems and their propaganda arm in the press do.
Dan's argument in rejecting sources he deems not to be "real journalists" is based entirely on his belief that "real journalism" is objective, unbiased, and not engaging in advocacy. Yet, when it suits him, he'll offer left leaning biased sources.
DeleteIn theory, you are correct that good reporting sticks to the facts and just the facts. Unfortunately, that doesn't apply to headlines and what stories are covered, so it's possible to allow bias to dictate the news, while accurately reporting the facts in an objective way within a story. How many times has Dan offered proof of something based on the headline, when the story doesn't deliver what the headline promised?
Obviously the bigger problem is that the left completely controls the MSM, as well as the academy (where new journalists are trained), which imparts a left wing bias that is embedded in the whole process.
This is as much about pointing out the reality that Dan lives in a fantasy world when it comes to "real journalism" as we've seen since the 2016 presidential campaign and during COVID.
That reporters are saying this out loud is the story, not that they are biased.
There are three factors in play here.
ReplyDelete1. The incredible lack of viewpoint diversity among the MSM. When everyone in the MSM shares a worldview, the likelihood of slanted and biased coverage increases.
2. The different standards for a reporter using the "public airwaves" and one not.
3. Dan's inconsistent application of his subjective criteria for what sources he'll accept, automatically excluding some regardless of the integrity, commitment to Truth/facts, and their choice to report objectively.