RSS
From the Washington Post opinion section:
Newsrooms that move beyond ‘objectivity’ can build trust
By Leonard Downie Jr.
January 30, 2023 at 7:15 a.m. ESTLeonard Downie Jr., a former executive editor of The Washington Post, is a professor at the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication at Arizona State University.
Amid all the profound challenges and changes roiling the American news media today, newsrooms are debating whether traditional objectivity should still be the standard for news reporting. “Objectivity” is defined by most dictionaries as expressing or using facts without distortion by personal beliefs, bias, feelings or prejudice. Journalistic objectivity has been generally understood to mean much the same thing.
But increasingly, reporters, editors and media critics argue that the concept of journalistic objectivity is a distortion of reality. They point out that the standard was dictated over decades by male editors in predominantly White newsrooms and reinforced their own view of the world. They believe that pursuing objectivity can lead to false balance or misleading “bothsidesism” in covering stories about race, the treatment of women, LGBTQ+ rights, income inequality, climate change and many other subjects. And, in today’s diversifying newsrooms, they feel it negates many of their own identities, life experiences and cultural contexts, keeping them from pursuing truth in their work.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
What’s the downside? Everyone who wanted journalism proper has long since fled the MSM. Those who still consume their tripe are probably happy to have their talking points laid out for them as to why their consumption of agenda-not-objectivity is superior to “just the facts, ma’am”.
Objectivity…the new Flying Spaghetti Monster.
So-called news media has been producing narrative accounts of what they want you to know, while omitting inconvenient facts for as long as I've been reading, well, newspapers. TV & cable are no different, as extensions of the same hype and outage viewership for advert-driven revenue model.
As my older brothers used to say (in the '60s), when I replied with something I'd read, "do you believe everything you read in the newspaper?"
There's nothing new under the sun, especially when it comes to mendacious reporting by media.
Pure 24 Carat Solid Orwellian Gold.
Worth preserving and quoting.
Woke is native to Oceania; is t natural product of post-christian WASP culture, which, of course, was but upon the Judaizing heresy of Puritanism and which began allying with Jewish bankers long before the 17th century ended. .
Guess what, Post Toasties? Objectivity is just one thing white men invented. Go on, study up! We’ll wait.
Be prepared to jettison them all. it’s a package deal.
https://marinmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/the-manchurian-candidate_wxND88-scaled.jpgReplies: @bomag, @Haxo Angmark
Objectivity is racist and sexist. Got it.
It’s the Marxist model.
Whites are the oppressive bourgeois.
MSM Marxism.
Be prepared to jettison them all. it's a package deal.Replies: @HammerJack
If only that were assured. More likely there will be more than enough hip white & asian guys to keep the lights on, and much else, as the ocean liner founders. And the hypocrisy? No one even notices that. Seriously: when was the last time a brainwashed, hypnotized person said anything about hypocrisy?
was that the Hollywood bolsheviks intended it to be a parody
of "anti-communist paranoia". But did it up so cleverly
that most average people who saw it it took it 2B
a close study of communist infiltration.
The MSM’s bias used to manifest itself more in the choices of stories that it covered than in the reporting on any individual story. That is wrong, though perhaps less wrong than the current practice — which has zoomed to warp speed in the past ten years or so — of simply making every news story an opinion piece that is consciously trying to impose an agenda.
Most of the Op-Ed seems to be arguing in favor of the former:
As for the rest of the article, he doesn’t really articulate why objectivity, which, by definition “negates many of their own identities, life experiences and cultural contexts” is in conflict with “pursuing truth in their work.” It just does! My truth, lived experiences, identity, etc., etc.
I think they used to call this post-modernism, the idea that there is no such thing as objective reality. Fuddy-duddy Enlightenment concepts like reason, the scientific method, cause and effect are just white male relics. It’s ironic that Washington Post journalists, among the most influential people in society, probably see themselves “speaking truth to power,” when in fact they want to do the opposite, using their power to impose “truth.” These twentysomething crusaders’ hubris — their arrogance, lack of humility, complete uninterest in self-reflection — is really dangerous.
*Two of the three perps were white ex-cons, one of whom said he had been gang raped by black prisoners. The prosecution itself said that one of the perps was a "racist psychopath"; it seems to me that psychopathy is a much more concerning character trait than "racism" (itself a nebulous term).Replies: @John Milton’s Ghost, @Mark G.
Maybe it's good they are dropping the pretense of objectivity, so no one is under any illusions.
Compare that to today, where the court narrative must be pushed at all costs. Yes the DIE people couch it in individualized language of lived experience, but the stultifying demands to embrace a prepackaged narrative and exclude unhelpful stories at all costs allows for none of the irony or cynicism of the postmodern.Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease, @ic1000
― Philip K. Dick
Apparently Woke journalists believe that if politically incorrect things like crime statistics or government malfeasance aren't reported, they will go away.
some of the smartest people ever, a while ago:
“The speed of light in a vacuum is 299,792,458 meters per second.”
woke doctrine today:
“Says who? According to Wikipedia, I noticed that everybody trying to tell us that was some pale penis person who lived 100 years ago. We’ll be calculating our own speed of light in a vacuum, thank you very much.”
i’ve observed this argument in the wild several times now – the idea that a rock solid basic fact or concept accepted by everybody up thru 20 or 30 years ago, might actually be totally wrong, because the people who figured it out were stale pale males. this extends into all fields, and gets head smackingly stupid sometimes. at some point you have to realize these wokesters have no idea at all what they’re talking about – not the exact fact or concept in question, but the entire endeavor of intellectual inquiry is sailing way over their head.
great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, and small minds discuss people. as the saying goes. wokester foot soldiers are focused on the people.
They’ll be no need for comment sections either, once you drop the silly bothsidesism.
Joni Mitchell speak Bothsideism to power:
Wouldn’t you say that the world was just a little less stupid 53 years ago?
Downie has decided that the writer's perspective is more important than reporting the facts (and information) as presented by the event reported upon. They've moved on from presenting to the public what they should know based on reporting objectively, i.e., balance.
No. What he proposes is merely standardizing what has been going on for decades (at least), that is, telling you what to think--not what to thing about, by presenting the event reported objectively.
Most of the Op-Ed seems to be arguing in favor of the former:As for the rest of the article, he doesn't really articulate why objectivity, which, by definition "negates many of their own identities, life experiences and cultural contexts" is in conflict with "pursuing truth in their work." It just does! My truth, lived experiences, identity, etc., etc.
I think they used to call this post-modernism, the idea that there is no such thing as objective reality. Fuddy-duddy Enlightenment concepts like reason, the scientific method, cause and effect are just white male relics. It's ironic that Washington Post journalists, among the most influential people in society, probably see themselves "speaking truth to power," when in fact they want to do the opposite, using their power to impose "truth." These twentysomething crusaders' hubris -- their arrogance, lack of humility, complete uninterest in self-reflection -- is really dangerous.Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Feryl, @CalCooledge, @John Milton’s Ghost, @AndrewR, @Herp McDerp
Downie syndrome:
If they muck it up bad enough, they will have fully forfeited “journalistic objectivity” for a common lived experience of ballistic objectivity.
This was posted by one of the biggest J-Schools in America 18 months ago. Poynter also run ‘PolitiFact’ and the ‘ International Fact-Checking Network’.
It’s time for journalism to break the cycle of crime reporting
The public good — rather than the public’s interest — should be a prevailing factor.
By: Doris Truong
https://www.poynter.org/ethics-trust/2021/its-time-for-journalism-to-break-the-cycle-of-crime-reporting
“The public good —- rather than the public’s interest —- should be a prevailing factor.”
One of the most Orwellian things I’ve ever seen written outside actual fiction. It wasn’t so long ago, of course, that these people wouldn’t (At least rhetorically) consider the two to be anything but synonymous.
But I worked it out. ‘The public good’, real or presumed political interests of non-whites. ‘The public’s interest’ the boring and illegitimate political interests of ‘Legacy Americans’.
And as we all know, non-whites only have legitimate collective interests and whites have no legitimate collective interests, only collective responsibility and shame. Because it’s 1968 and American is 90% white only just ended segregation. Right?
“Walter”? No, no, no, JIMMY Durante…
Everyone reports stories with their own biases, intended but mostly, unintended. It’s only natural.
Let’s take the recent death of Jeff Beck, guitarist (mostly). Someone from a musical background would focus exclusively on that. However, Beck was a world class gearhead and had a fantastic collection of hot rods. A reporter with automotive interests would probably include that tidbit in the report as well.
In my 20+ years working in the media the most biased reporters I knew were the ones that insisted they were Totally Objective.
MSM should be brought up on treason charges for what they’ve done to this country.
The word of the day – KAYFABE
Most of the Op-Ed seems to be arguing in favor of the former:As for the rest of the article, he doesn't really articulate why objectivity, which, by definition "negates many of their own identities, life experiences and cultural contexts" is in conflict with "pursuing truth in their work." It just does! My truth, lived experiences, identity, etc., etc.
I think they used to call this post-modernism, the idea that there is no such thing as objective reality. Fuddy-duddy Enlightenment concepts like reason, the scientific method, cause and effect are just white male relics. It's ironic that Washington Post journalists, among the most influential people in society, probably see themselves "speaking truth to power," when in fact they want to do the opposite, using their power to impose "truth." These twentysomething crusaders' hubris -- their arrogance, lack of humility, complete uninterest in self-reflection -- is really dangerous.Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Feryl, @CalCooledge, @John Milton’s Ghost, @AndrewR, @Herp McDerp
Depending on whether you blame the dissolution of Soviet Union or the influx of Boomers into powerful roles (or perhaps something else) something definitely happened in the 90’s to the American media. Obviously divisive and inflammatory playing up of stories like the James Byrd* murder and the Matthew Shepard saga marred the approach of the media back then; there was a brief period of about 2002-2005 in which one could be more un-PC (I would know, I was in high school in the early 2000’s and I heard many of my popularly scorned Millennial generation mates say stuff that would be, as they now say, cancelable these days). But rather than enduring galvanization, by 2006 the popular mood turned back to one of division and cynicism.
*Two of the three perps were white ex-cons, one of whom said he had been gang raped by black prisoners. The prosecution itself said that one of the perps was a “racist psychopath”; it seems to me that psychopathy is a much more concerning character trait than “racism” (itself a nebulous term).
To be fair in the 1990s the press did find it worthwhile to investigate Clinton imbroglios even if most media members detested his opponents more. Compare that to today’s silence or even gaslighting of anything critical of the regime.Replies: @Feryl
The best way to find some of the books and magazine articles related to this is get an old 1993 copy of the National Review Politically Incorrect Reference Guide. Leftists especially focused on capturing control of education and the media because of their usefulness in brainwashing the impressionable younger generation. There was a similar former sixties radical movement into government in the 90's with one former sixties radical couple even becoming president and first lady.Replies: @Feryl, @Unladen Swallow
Worth preserving and quoting.Replies: @Shamu, @Shamu
And as you should know just from reading Orwell, in early form that fit the 20th century, it was fully represented, though far from hegemonic, in English academia and journalism before WW2.
Woke is native to Oceania; it is natural product of post-Christian WASP culture, which, of course, was built upon the Judaizing heresy of Puritanism and which began allying with Jewish bankers long before the 17th century ended.
Anglo-Zionism is the bedrock of British Empire and American Empire.
From my days as a student (fifty years ago) I remember that the Marxists were up in arms against “nonpartisanship” – “partisanship” was en vogue. As for “objectivity”, the shtick has been that it does not really exist – “there is no objectivity, so I am just subjective”. I was somewhat bewildered, until I had the luck to detect Alfred Tarski’s definition of truth, and Karl Popper’s use of it, and I never looked back.
A journalist has to inform us about singular cases. Correcting his story by relying on his ” life experiences” is the defintion case for “prejudice”.
Now the interesting is that the Cultural Marxists, even if they shunned “objectivity”, claimed at the same time to be strong opponents of “bias” and “prejudice” – it’s at the center of their studies about the so-called “authoritarian personality” (a bit of psychological projection?).
We should insist to pin them down on that contradiction.
Worth preserving and quoting.Replies: @Shamu, @Shamu
And as you should know just from reading Orwell, in early form that fit the 2oth century’s it was fully represented, though far from hegemonic, in English academic and jounoslaism before WW2.
Woke is native to Oceania; is t natural product of post-christian WASP culture, which, of course, was but upon the Judaizing heresy of Puritanism and which began allying with Jewish bankers long before the 17th century ended. .
*Two of the three perps were white ex-cons, one of whom said he had been gang raped by black prisoners. The prosecution itself said that one of the perps was a "racist psychopath"; it seems to me that psychopathy is a much more concerning character trait than "racism" (itself a nebulous term).Replies: @John Milton’s Ghost, @Mark G.
That’s a very specific timeline, yet doesn’t seem to coincide with any other sociopolitical shifts. To what would you attribute the “by 2006” return (or perhaps the 2002-2005 thaw)?
To be fair in the 1990s the press did find it worthwhile to investigate Clinton imbroglios even if most media members detested his opponents more. Compare that to today’s silence or even gaslighting of anything critical of the regime.
I would say that the media in general was less corrupt back then than it is now. But the media de-regulation of the late 90's permitted a lot of consolidation which had a ruinous effect on investigative journalism (before the late 90's it wasn't unheard of to see stories about CIA drug trafficking and the like in mainstream newspapers and magazines).
Looking back I would say that circa 1995 is when things really started going downhill in terms of greed, inequality, debased culture, etc.. That being said, the idiotic political and identity tribalism that are now the norm didn't really take off until the late 2000's.Replies: @Corvinus, @ben tillman, @Reg Cæsar
Most of the Op-Ed seems to be arguing in favor of the former:As for the rest of the article, he doesn't really articulate why objectivity, which, by definition "negates many of their own identities, life experiences and cultural contexts" is in conflict with "pursuing truth in their work." It just does! My truth, lived experiences, identity, etc., etc.
I think they used to call this post-modernism, the idea that there is no such thing as objective reality. Fuddy-duddy Enlightenment concepts like reason, the scientific method, cause and effect are just white male relics. It's ironic that Washington Post journalists, among the most influential people in society, probably see themselves "speaking truth to power," when in fact they want to do the opposite, using their power to impose "truth." These twentysomething crusaders' hubris -- their arrogance, lack of humility, complete uninterest in self-reflection -- is really dangerous.Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Feryl, @CalCooledge, @John Milton’s Ghost, @AndrewR, @Herp McDerp
“Speaking truth to power” means “screwing over white people’
Maybe it’s good they are dropping the pretense of objectivity, so no one is under any illusions.
Most of the Op-Ed seems to be arguing in favor of the former:As for the rest of the article, he doesn't really articulate why objectivity, which, by definition "negates many of their own identities, life experiences and cultural contexts" is in conflict with "pursuing truth in their work." It just does! My truth, lived experiences, identity, etc., etc.
I think they used to call this post-modernism, the idea that there is no such thing as objective reality. Fuddy-duddy Enlightenment concepts like reason, the scientific method, cause and effect are just white male relics. It's ironic that Washington Post journalists, among the most influential people in society, probably see themselves "speaking truth to power," when in fact they want to do the opposite, using their power to impose "truth." These twentysomething crusaders' hubris -- their arrogance, lack of humility, complete uninterest in self-reflection -- is really dangerous.Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Feryl, @CalCooledge, @John Milton’s Ghost, @AndrewR, @Herp McDerp
Postmodernism had a sort of happy nihilism to it, however. Most proponents mocked sacred cows of all types, and even applied cultural relativism to relativists. There was also a strain of what I might call neo-traditionalism or neo-orthodoxy in postmodern ranks, whereby rejecting the Enlightenment’s de facto secularism, regimentation, and rationality could lead to practices that the Enlightenment had declared unreliable, i.e. custom and religious belief. (Most were offered on behalf of “marginalized people” like South Asian nationalists or African genital mutilators, but at least in theory extended to white practices. )
Compare that to today, where the court narrative must be pushed at all costs. Yes the DIE people couch it in individualized language of lived experience, but the stultifying demands to embrace a prepackaged narrative and exclude unhelpful stories at all costs allows for none of the irony or cynicism of the postmodern.
POSTMODERNIST TWAT: Ah, another fine day's work, mocking normality, zigging against the zag, and slaughtering sacred cows. Time to relax. Oh, waiter! I'll have a hamburger please.
WAITER: There are no more hamburgers. In fact there is no more beef of any kind. You a$$holes slaughtered all the cows, so now there will never be another hamburger, ever again. Here, have a plate of bugs. It's what you worked so hard for.
POSTMODERNIST TWAT: B-b-but, we didn't slaughter all the cows! Only the sacred ones!
WAITER: Well, since you destroyed the idea of the sacred, how could you tell which was which? Nope, you wound up slaughtering them all. Now eat your bugs. President Hillary's Severed Frozen Head commands it.
> [I, along with all of my friends and mentors, not to mention those Young People of LGBTQIA+ness and POCness that want my Boomer self to speak for them,] believe that pursuing objectivity can lead to false balance or misleading “bothsidesism” in covering stories about race, the treatment of women, LGBTQ+ rights, income inequality, climate change and many other subjects.
Well, in the sense of knowing enough of the relevant sciences, having read widely, having thought about long-term risks and consequences of policies, and having devoted many hours to Downie’s beloved WaPo, the NYT, and NBC Nightly News with Lester Holt, I can offer opinions on the mainstream’s efforts to offer “balance” and “both sides”:
Race — no
The treatment of women — no
LGBTQ+ rights — the phrasing of the topic is answer enough
income inequality — no
climate change — no
many other subjects — be specific, please. Are you thinking of coverage of the Ukraine war? Covid?
Not moving in Leonard Downie’s charmed circles, these qualified opinions seem well-supported and reasonable. Perhaps if we sat down for a serious discussion, Downie could change my mind.
Perhaps.
Downie’s position makes clear what is obvious to many already – the media has an agenda and doesn’t want to be bound by pesky facts in framing its content. Secondarily although not really acknowledged by him, when it does this it’s not actually providing news nor fulfilling the role in democracy they love to carp about.
At any rate, this is all going to get worse as the younger generations take on more important roles as they are even less committed to objectivity and free speech than the current batch.
About Gen Z? They are basically Millennials on steroids. Jon Haidt says that the shift to college professors being afraid of cancellation coincided with those born in 1997 becoming college students.Replies: @Corvinus
Unlike GenX, Millennials and younger cohorts love hoaxes. Because they derive all their life meaning from fake things in cyberspace, they are very enthusiastic when they can partake of fake things in meatspace; viz: the covid hoax and facediapering. 90% of harassment re diapering came from young people and almost NONE came from GenX.
Before the Millennials, GenX was the most hoaxed generation and we resented the endless litany of acid rain, The Big One, AIDS, the ozone hole and dozens of other hoaxes purveyed thru the 1980s and 90s because we derived meaning from real things in the real world, whereas Millennialtards and GenZ spend 99.9% of their lives staring at a fake world on a tiny screen, so they don't resent the endless fakery of endless hoaxes like globalclimatecrisischange, covid, and chix with dix because their entire existence is a hoax.Replies: @AndrewR
I don’t see how the MSM can get any less objective and still hold onto its audience. My older brother continued to subscribe to the New York Times long after it had become thoroughly biased. When I would ask him about it, he’d say, yes, he saw the bias, but there was still a lot of good information in it. Then, six or seven years ago, he canceled his subscription. He felt the NYT was insulting his intelligence with its over-the-top propagandistic approach to nearly every subject. There must be others of their remaining readers who will reach their breaking point. There’s no one currently boycotting the MSM because it’s not woke enough, so this even less objective approach is going to shrink its audience even more.
As far as whether the MSM has ever objective in my life, I think it was more so in the 1960s on any subject except race. There was always a soft spot for the long-suffering Negro. However, a frequently used phrase in coverage of the ’60s race riots was “roving bands of Negro youths,” so at least it was honest about who was doing what. In 1977, there was terrible rioting and looting during the 1977 blackout in NYC. The New Yorker published an editorial justifying it that so amazed me I cut it out for my files.
In the ’80s I subscribed to Reed Irvine’s newsletter Accuracy in Media, which analyzed the liberal bias of stories in the MSM. So, I would say it has always had a bias, it just keeps getting more obvious and extreme.
However, the primary deception of all news media is the pretense that they know what is going on.
From this tool’s article:
OK, ‘objectivity’ is out, because it is is determined by white men, but ‘fairness’ and ‘truth’ are just fine as as values.
What they’re not even bothering to cover up is that they’re not-so-smart bootlickers for power.
Yes, because we all know that opinions are more reliable than facts.
Leave it to Mr. Sailer to not offer context and nuance, i.e. the entire story. Hear is the rest of article.
Something like this occurred during my early years in the field in the 1960s and ’70s. Under the leadership of a few editors, including especially The Post’s Ben Bradlee, our generation of young journalists moved away from mostly unquestioning news coverage of institutional power. I was one of the editors on The Post’s Watergate story, which spawned widespread national investigative reporting that continues today. Colleagues at The Post, other newspapers and broadcast networks reported skeptically on the unwinnable Vietnam War.
Throughout the time, beginning in 1984, when I worked as Bradlee’s managing editor and then, from 1991 to 2008, succeeded him as executive editor, I never understood what “objectivity” meant. I didn’t consider it a standard for our newsroom. My goals for our journalism were instead accuracy, fairness, nonpartisanship, accountability and the pursuit of truth.
Nonpartisanship was particularly important for a paper that was a national leader in covering politics and government. As the final gatekeeper for Post journalism, I stopped voting or making up my own mind about issues. As Bradlee had, I insisted on noninvolvement of Post journalists in political activity or advocacy of any kind, except voting. I also worked to make The Post newsroom more diverse, and encouraged everyone to have a voice in our decision-making.
Amanda Ripley: I stopped reading the news. Is the problem me — or the product?
Now, the mainstream news media is coping with economic and digital disruption, along with increasing competition from misinformation on cable television and the internet. Meanwhile, American society itself has been in upheaval over discrimination against and abuse of women; persistent racism and white nationalism; police brutality and killings; the treatment of LGBTQ+ people; income inequality and social problems; immigration and the treatment of immigrants; the causes and effects of climate change; voting rights and election inequality; and even the very survival of our democracy. Reporting reliably on all of this has critically challenged newsrooms, calling into question their diversity, values and credibility.
To better understand the changes happening now, I and former CBS News president Andrew Heyward, a colleague at Arizona State University’s Walter Cronkite School of Journalism, investigated the values and practices in mainstream newsrooms today, with a grant from the Stanton Foundation. What we found has convinced us that truth-seeking news media must move beyond whatever “objectivity” once meant to produce more trustworthy news. We interviewed more than 75 news leaders, journalists and other experts in mainstream print, broadcast and digital news media, many of whom also advocate such a change. This appears to be the beginning of another generational shift in American journalism.
Among the news leaders who told Heyward and me that they had rejected objectivity as a coverage standard was Kathleen Carroll, former executive editor of the Associated Press. “It’s objective by whose standard?” she asked. “That standard seems to be White, educated, fairly wealthy. … And when people don’t feel like they find themselves in news coverage, it’s because they don’t fit that definition.”
More and more journalists of color and younger White reporters, including LGBTQ+ people, in increasingly diverse newsrooms believe that the concept of objectivity has prevented truly accurate reporting informed by their own backgrounds, experiences and points of view.
“There is some confusion about the value of good reporting versus point of view,” said current Post executive editor Sally Buzbee, who noted that many journalists want to make a difference on such issues as climate change, immigration and education. “We stress the value of reporting,” she said, “what you are able to dig up — so you (the reader) can make up your own mind.”
“The consensus among younger journalists is that we got it all wrong,” Emilio Garcia-Ruiz, editor in chief of the San Francisco Chronicle, told us. “Objectivity has got to go.” Letters to the Editor: Why we’re not reading the news
Garcia-Ruiz is among a vanguard of print, broadcast and digital news leaders who have increased their newsrooms’ diversity and created new avenues of communication among their reporters and editors to discuss issues and coverage. Some have assembled affinity groups or caucuses of staff members — for women, Blacks, Latinos, Asian Americans and LGBTQ+ people — and involved them in newsroom decisions.
At USA Today, editor in chief Nicole Carroll told us she seeks a diversity of staff participants, experiences and views in daily brainstorming sessions about news coverage. In these discussions, Carroll said, she and her editors “have found more value in diverse people’s lived experiences.” She has no prohibitions against staff members working on stories involving their identities or life experiences unless they demonstrate a strong bias.
At the Los Angeles Times, reporters and editors have many personal identities, explained editor Kevin Merida. “We find ways for our journalists to share more of that,” including first-person essays on the front page. He cited a Latina reporter’s story about the low vaccination rate in her community and a gay police reporter’s story about his own marriage and a potential U.S. Supreme Court threat to the legality of same-sex marriages.
Some local television stations owned by broadcast networks are trying to increase their coverage of real life in their communities. ABC-owned stations have, for example, sent journalists from recently created “race and culture content” teams into local neighborhoods. “We have to be able to use the voices of people whose neighborhoods we don’t normally go into and tell these stories from their vantage point,” Maxine Crooks, a vice president of ABC-owned stations, told us.
Claudia Milne, senior vice president of standards and practices for CBS News, pointed out that decisions about which news to cover can reflect an organization’s values, whether or not these are stated publicly, as The Post has done with its slogan, “Democracy Dies in Darkness.” Sometimes, the language used in news stories also can reflect such values.
“I don’t want to throw labels like ‘racist’ or ‘lying’ around willy-nilly; the evidence should be high,” Joseph Kahn, executive editor of the New York Times, told us. “But I think it’s true that, when the evidence is there, we should not default to some mealy-mouthed, so-called neutral language that some people see this as a falsehood, while others do not. When the evidence is there, we should be clear and direct with our audience that we don’t think there are multiple sides to this question, this is a falsehood. And the person repeating this falsehood over and over is guilty of lying.”
Newer, nonprofit news organizations often have launched with stated missions. The national digital news site the 19th, for example, aims to “elevate voices of women, people of color, and the LGBTQ+ community.”
Elizabeth Green, co-founder and chief executive of Chalkbeat, whose news websites across the country cover education, said it adopted antiracism as a core value. “We talk about it a lot,” she told us. “Is this what an antiracist news organization would do?”
Should journalists go outside their organizations to express their own opinions on social media or take part in advocacy or protests? In these rapidly changing times, it has become a difficult question to answer.
“You can’t be an activist and be a Times journalist at the same time,” Kahn said flatly. “All of our newsroom journalists should act as if they are representing the institution that they’re working for when they’re making public comments about major issues in the news.” Perry Bacon Jr.: America should spend billions to revive local news.
Noah Oppenheim, the president of NBC News, pointed out that there are many ways to influence people and leaders, and journalism is one of them. “Our position is that, if you choose journalism as your route, you are giving up some other options that are available to the general public,” he said.
At the Los Angeles Times, Merida is open to the possibility that reporters might cover issues on which they actively engage. “We’re trying to find that line,” he said. “We’re trying to create an environment in which we don’t police our journalists too much. Our young people want to be participants in the world.”
Both Heyward and I continue to believe that allowing journalists to express opinions on controversial social and political issues erodes the perception of their news organizations’ fairness and open-mindedness. As representatives of news outlets, they give up some personal rights to free expression. But some mission-driven operations might well choose to allow social media and political activity with their core values. It’s best for each newsroom to have a clear and consistent policy.
We urge news organizations to, first, strive not just for accuracy brd on verifiable facts but also for truth — what Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward have called “the best obtainable version of the truth.” This means original journalism that includes investigating and reporting on all aspects of American life.
Newsroom staff diversity should reflect the communities being covered — not just gender and ethnic diversity but also diversity of economic, educational, geographic and social backgrounds. Inclusive newsrooms should encourage their journalists to speak up and be heard by their colleagues and leaders in making decisions about coverage.
News media should also be as transparent as possible about their newsgathering decisions and processes. When possible, they should hire or designate an editor to field and act on reader complaints and questions.
Responsible news organizations need to develop core values by having candid, inclusive and open conversations. Making these values public could well forge a stronger connection between journalists and the public.
One essential value for all Americans is the survival of democratic institutions, which are under attack on multiple fronts. Trustworthy journalism by a new generation of journalists and newsroom leaders can ensure that the news media continues to do its part to protect democracy.
This is an awful lot of words to say "What is objectivity (truth) anyway?" When you are 18 years old and stoned or drunk, it's good to philosophize with your drinking buddies that reality is not 100% rock hard like the concrete sidewalk that you just tripped and fell onto. But the next morning when you wake up and you're all bruised up, those bruises tend it indicate that it mostly is.
Objective reality DOES exist. A perfect journalist portrayal of an event will never be achieved, just like a painting of a thing will never be the thing itself. But it's the job of the journalist to get as close as humanly possible to it and not to intentionally turn away from it, to try to put aside their biases and not embrace them and flaunt them. At least if the journalist wants to have any credibility as a journalist and not as a polemicist.Replies: @Corvinus, @Post-Postmodernist
Have you seen how desperate the United States Military is for recruits?
Hardly anybody believes in this place anymore, and why should they?
This nation worries about borders on the other side of the earth, but not its own. This nation apparently accepts openly rigged paper ballot election with oodles of unverifiable ballots sent to unsecured locations so activists can gobble them up and fill them out with no signature or drivers license verifications. This nation allows BLM and antifa to take over little parts of cities and beat up residents there who don't agree with them, or tge hijacking of their neighborhoods. This nation attempts to lure people's kids to androgynous lifestyles, and the sex-changes replete with irreversible genital mutilation and sterilization. This nation is doing nothing about investigating why over 100 food processing or farm facilities have seen fires or other damage in the past three years. No FBI, DOJ.....nothing.
Protect democracy apparently means protecting vote fraud.
Find a tall parking structure and jump off the top level.
You will discover objective reality at the bottom.
I wish you had done this years ago...Replies: @Corvinus, @ic1000
Your goals, as you call them, do indeed indicate that you did understand what objectivity meant.
The election of President Trump created our modern era of fact-free Fake News, reaching its apogee in the covid virus hoax, followed by the largely peaceful riots of 2020, culminating in the blatantly fraudulent election of a senile child rapist promising eternal lockdowns and facediapers.
I consume fakestream media only so that I know what they WANT me to believe, not so that I can learn anything real.
Newspapers of the 1800s were blatantly partisan and did not even feign objectivity.
Good to see Corby defending the Marketing Department. Even better to see the Marketing Department fess up to the fact they are no more than House Scribes for whoever signs the checks.
You guys have a narrative….we’re happy to pimp it for you!
What you need is people who have the skills, intelligence and energy to ably report, edit and design a newspaper and yet not give a damn about any of the issues. People who are focused on their career, their family, sex/drugs/rock n roll or whatever but not about politics, social issues or culture wars.
This used to be easier to do than you think — people were just not so polarized back before the internet. Once Vietnam was over, young adults mostly went back to not caring about what was happening or who was winning. I don’t recall having any political discussions whatsoever with newsroom colleagues during the Carter/Reagan/Bush I era, although this was starting to change when I got out. One newspaper where I worked pretty happily is now too crazy woke to even glance at without retching.
Again back to a basic point — Journalism has become more feminized, and women have become much more politicized. With no pushback from veteran newspeople, you get more attitude and less reality.
Something else they’re not trying to cover up.
So the war on Americans will need twice as many people as the war on the rest of the world.
http://www.stationgossip.com/2023/02/report-fbi-planning-to-build-new.html
Side note: we'll know the Republicans are serious when they zero the budget of the FBI.
At any rate, this is all going to get worse as the younger generations take on more important roles as they are even less committed to objectivity and free speech than the current batch.Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Feryl, @Je Suis Omar Mateen
I ran out of [Agree]s, Arclight.
One could go back a long way, to Walter Duranty in the 1930s, or Walter Cronkite in the 1960s, but I would say it was Woodward & Bernstein’s take-down of President Nixon that switched that light on in the heads of American “journalists” and their whole oldest profession back in the mid-1970s.
First, before they were all on the left, they all wanted to be that next Woodward & Bernstein to change the world, rather than just report on it. They were no longer mere “reporters”.
Now that the Long March through the Institutions has been completed by the American Commies, the Media is simply one arm of the ctrl-left Establishment. The agenda has been solidified, and it is: Destroy traditional America. Feminism, PC, Socialism, you-name-it, are some of the weapons, but the population replacement of the pesky White middle class of men has been their most successful operation as of late.
They are way beyond having to argue against logic and reason from Conservatives anymore. They may as well just spell it out for us. Personally, I think they are jumping the gun just a bit. We with the guns will see.
With a few exceptions like H.L. Mencken or Tom Wolfe most journalists have been on the left. The first book on the subject was The News Twisters by Edith Efron, a real classic that I read in the late seventies.
Not entirely off topic …
OpenAI has announced a new tier of service, ChatGPT Plus, which will be available for $20/month. Those who subscribe will get “general access to ChatGPT, even during peak times,” faster response times and priority access to new features and improvements, the site says.
Newsmedia companies busily replacing humans with ChatGPT filler will certainly find the $20 well worth it — unless it proves to be too stubbornly “objective,” I suppose
Having worked at newspapers way back there in the 20th century, I think the internet, the Clintons, talk radio and the contested election of 2000 really set off the polarization of the public and the blatant media swing to the hard left. The rise of social media sealed the deal. Vietnam and Watergate were crucial events but things died down for a while as the 70s and 80s wore on
Yes the media was hard left before that, but until pretty recently it could not convince so many people to care one way or another — even the people who worked at newspapers, see my other incredibly insightful razor-sharp comment nearby.
The dawn of all-news all the time TV meant that these outlets had to generate content because there just isn't enough news of consequence to fill the entire day. More soft and opinion programming came around, new stations competed with each other, and even somewhat staid print publications had to follow suit. Then comes the internet, smartphones, and social media and the access of hundreds of millions to on-demand opinion and biased information created an even more slanted ecosystem.
Basically anyone born in the mid-90s onwards has never known a society in which our media outlets were even trying to be even-handed.
“…pursuing truth in their work.”
“Truth”–as THEY define it.
After all, according to the zeitgeist it’s all…uh…”relative”.
Right?
In other words, the truth reflects poorly on the Left and its agenda, so the Left must lie.
I think it is a good thing that the “news” media are beginning to admit that they are really about promoting leftist propaganda.
https://jonimitchell.com/music/song.cfm?id=83
This is a song that talks about sides to things. In most cases there are both sides to things and in a lot of cases there are more than just both. His and a hers. His and theirs. But in this song there are only two sides to things… there’s reality and I guess what you might call fantasy. There’s enchantment and dis-enchantment, what we’re taught to believe things are and what they really are.
Amanda Ripley: I stopped reading the news. Is the problem me — or the product?Now, the mainstream news media is coping with economic and digital disruption, along with increasing competition from misinformation on cable television and the internet. Meanwhile, American society itself has been in upheaval over discrimination against and abuse of women; persistent racism and white nationalism; police brutality and killings; the treatment of LGBTQ+ people; income inequality and social problems; immigration and the treatment of immigrants; the causes and effects of climate change; voting rights and election inequality; and even the very survival of our democracy. Reporting reliably on all of this has critically challenged newsrooms, calling into question their diversity, values and credibility.To better understand the changes happening now, I and former CBS News president Andrew Heyward, a colleague at Arizona State University’s Walter Cronkite School of Journalism, investigated the values and practices in mainstream newsrooms today, with a grant from the Stanton Foundation. What we found has convinced us that truth-seeking news media must move beyond whatever “objectivity” once meant to produce more trustworthy news. We interviewed more than 75 news leaders, journalists and other experts in mainstream print, broadcast and digital news media, many of whom also advocate such a change. This appears to be the beginning of another generational shift in American journalism.Among the news leaders who told Heyward and me that they had rejected objectivity as a coverage standard was Kathleen Carroll, former executive editor of the Associated Press. “It’s objective by whose standard?” she asked. “That standard seems to be White, educated, fairly wealthy. … And when people don’t feel like they find themselves in news coverage, it’s because they don’t fit that definition.”More and more journalists of color and younger White reporters, including LGBTQ+ people, in increasingly diverse newsrooms believe that the concept of objectivity has prevented truly accurate reporting informed by their own backgrounds, experiences and points of view.“There is some confusion about the value of good reporting versus point of view,” said current Post executive editor Sally Buzbee, who noted that many journalists want to make a difference on such issues as climate change, immigration and education. “We stress the value of reporting,” she said, “what you are able to dig up — so you (the reader) can make up your own mind.”“The consensus among younger journalists is that we got it all wrong,” Emilio Garcia-Ruiz, editor in chief of the San Francisco Chronicle, told us. “Objectivity has got to go.” Letters to the Editor: Why we’re not reading the news
Garcia-Ruiz is among a vanguard of print, broadcast and digital news leaders who have increased their newsrooms’ diversity and created new avenues of communication among their reporters and editors to discuss issues and coverage. Some have assembled affinity groups or caucuses of staff members — for women, Blacks, Latinos, Asian Americans and LGBTQ+ people — and involved them in newsroom decisions.At USA Today, editor in chief Nicole Carroll told us she seeks a diversity of staff participants, experiences and views in daily brainstorming sessions about news coverage. In these discussions, Carroll said, she and her editors “have found more value in diverse people’s lived experiences.” She has no prohibitions against staff members working on stories involving their identities or life experiences unless they demonstrate a strong bias.
At the Los Angeles Times, reporters and editors have many personal identities, explained editor Kevin Merida. “We find ways for our journalists to share more of that,” including first-person essays on the front page. He cited a Latina reporter’s story about the low vaccination rate in her community and a gay police reporter’s story about his own marriage and a potential U.S. Supreme Court threat to the legality of same-sex marriages.Some local television stations owned by broadcast networks are trying to increase their coverage of real life in their communities. ABC-owned stations have, for example, sent journalists from recently created “race and culture content” teams into local neighborhoods. “We have to be able to use the voices of people whose neighborhoods we don’t normally go into and tell these stories from their vantage point,” Maxine Crooks, a vice president of ABC-owned stations, told us.Claudia Milne, senior vice president of standards and practices for CBS News, pointed out that decisions about which news to cover can reflect an organization’s values, whether or not these are stated publicly, as The Post has done with its slogan, “Democracy Dies in Darkness.” Sometimes, the language used in news stories also can reflect such values.“I don’t want to throw labels like ‘racist’ or ‘lying’ around willy-nilly; the evidence should be high,” Joseph Kahn, executive editor of the New York Times, told us. “But I think it’s true that, when the evidence is there, we should not default to some mealy-mouthed, so-called neutral language that some people see this as a falsehood, while others do not. When the evidence is there, we should be clear and direct with our audience that we don’t think there are multiple sides to this question, this is a falsehood. And the person repeating this falsehood over and over is guilty of lying.”Newer, nonprofit news organizations often have launched with stated missions. The national digital news site the 19th, for example, aims to “elevate voices of women, people of color, and the LGBTQ+ community.”
Elizabeth Green, co-founder and chief executive of Chalkbeat, whose news websites across the country cover education, said it adopted antiracism as a core value. “We talk about it a lot,” she told us. “Is this what an antiracist news organization would do?”Should journalists go outside their organizations to express their own opinions on social media or take part in advocacy or protests? In these rapidly changing times, it has become a difficult question to answer.
“You can’t be an activist and be a Times journalist at the same time,” Kahn said flatly. “All of our newsroom journalists should act as if they are representing the institution that they’re working for when they’re making public comments about major issues in the news.” Perry Bacon Jr.: America should spend billions to revive local news. Noah Oppenheim, the president of NBC News, pointed out that there are many ways to influence people and leaders, and journalism is one of them. “Our position is that, if you choose journalism as your route, you are giving up some other options that are available to the general public,” he said.At the Los Angeles Times, Merida is open to the possibility that reporters might cover issues on which they actively engage. “We’re trying to find that line,” he said. “We’re trying to create an environment in which we don’t police our journalists too much. Our young people want to be participants in the world.”Both Heyward and I continue to believe that allowing journalists to express opinions on controversial social and political issues erodes the perception of their news organizations’ fairness and open-mindedness. As representatives of news outlets, they give up some personal rights to free expression. But some mission-driven operations might well choose to allow social media and political activity with their core values. It’s best for each newsroom to have a clear and consistent policy.We urge news organizations to, first, strive not just for accuracy brd on verifiable facts but also for truth — what Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward have called “the best obtainable version of the truth.” This means original journalism that includes investigating and reporting on all aspects of American life.Newsroom staff diversity should reflect the communities being covered — not just gender and ethnic diversity but also diversity of economic, educational, geographic and social backgrounds. Inclusive newsrooms should encourage their journalists to speak up and be heard by their colleagues and leaders in making decisions about coverage.News media should also be as transparent as possible about their newsgathering decisions and processes. When possible, they should hire or designate an editor to field and act on reader complaints and questions.Responsible news organizations need to develop core values by having candid, inclusive and open conversations. Making these values public could well forge a stronger connection between journalists and the public.One essential value for all Americans is the survival of democratic institutions, which are under attack on multiple fronts. Trustworthy journalism by a new generation of journalists and newsroom leaders can ensure that the news media continues to do its part to protect democracy.Replies: @Jack D, @Rusty Tailgate, @Gabe Ruth, @Anon, @Muggles, @anonymous, @Jonathan Mason, @Poirot
Learn about the MORE tag. We all had the link anyway and didn’t need your cut and paste.
This is an awful lot of words to say “What is objectivity (truth) anyway?” When you are 18 years old and stoned or drunk, it’s good to philosophize with your drinking buddies that reality is not 100% rock hard like the concrete sidewalk that you just tripped and fell onto. But the next morning when you wake up and you’re all bruised up, those bruises tend it indicate that it mostly is.
Objective reality DOES exist. A perfect journalist portrayal of an event will never be achieved, just like a painting of a thing will never be the thing itself. But it’s the job of the journalist to get as close as humanly possible to it and not to intentionally turn away from it, to try to put aside their biases and not embrace them and flaunt them. At least if the journalist wants to have any credibility as a journalist and not as a polemicist.
It was behind a paywall. This, the need to show the rest of the article. Be appreciative next time.
“This is an awful lot of words to say “What is objectivity (truth) anyway?””
It’s called insight. You could learn from it.
“When you are 18 years old and stoned or drunk, it’s good to philosophize with your drinking buddies that reality is not 100% rock hard like the concrete sidewalk that you just tripped and fell onto. But the next morning when you wake up and you’re all bruised up, those bruises tend it indicate that it mostly is.”
And your point?
“Objective reality DOES exist. A perfect journalist portrayal of an event will never be achieved”
Non sequitur.
“But it’s the job of the journalist to get as close as humanly possible to it and not to intentionally turn away from it, to try to put aside their biases and not embrace them and flaunt them. At least if the journalist wants to have any credibility as a journalist and not as a polemicist”
And that’s what the gist of the article is about.Replies: @Jack D, @Hibernian, @Mr. Anon
Being surprised by the now admitted bias of “journalists” is like being shocked by the fact that everyone who enters the Catholic seminary believes in the resurrection of Jesus Christ or accepts the authority of Rome.
You don’t get into “journalism,” at least not with an eye towards employment with the MSM, unless you are a True Believer.
Amanda Ripley: I stopped reading the news. Is the problem me — or the product?Now, the mainstream news media is coping with economic and digital disruption, along with increasing competition from misinformation on cable television and the internet. Meanwhile, American society itself has been in upheaval over discrimination against and abuse of women; persistent racism and white nationalism; police brutality and killings; the treatment of LGBTQ+ people; income inequality and social problems; immigration and the treatment of immigrants; the causes and effects of climate change; voting rights and election inequality; and even the very survival of our democracy. Reporting reliably on all of this has critically challenged newsrooms, calling into question their diversity, values and credibility.To better understand the changes happening now, I and former CBS News president Andrew Heyward, a colleague at Arizona State University’s Walter Cronkite School of Journalism, investigated the values and practices in mainstream newsrooms today, with a grant from the Stanton Foundation. What we found has convinced us that truth-seeking news media must move beyond whatever “objectivity” once meant to produce more trustworthy news. We interviewed more than 75 news leaders, journalists and other experts in mainstream print, broadcast and digital news media, many of whom also advocate such a change. This appears to be the beginning of another generational shift in American journalism.Among the news leaders who told Heyward and me that they had rejected objectivity as a coverage standard was Kathleen Carroll, former executive editor of the Associated Press. “It’s objective by whose standard?” she asked. “That standard seems to be White, educated, fairly wealthy. … And when people don’t feel like they find themselves in news coverage, it’s because they don’t fit that definition.”More and more journalists of color and younger White reporters, including LGBTQ+ people, in increasingly diverse newsrooms believe that the concept of objectivity has prevented truly accurate reporting informed by their own backgrounds, experiences and points of view.“There is some confusion about the value of good reporting versus point of view,” said current Post executive editor Sally Buzbee, who noted that many journalists want to make a difference on such issues as climate change, immigration and education. “We stress the value of reporting,” she said, “what you are able to dig up — so you (the reader) can make up your own mind.”“The consensus among younger journalists is that we got it all wrong,” Emilio Garcia-Ruiz, editor in chief of the San Francisco Chronicle, told us. “Objectivity has got to go.” Letters to the Editor: Why we’re not reading the news
Garcia-Ruiz is among a vanguard of print, broadcast and digital news leaders who have increased their newsrooms’ diversity and created new avenues of communication among their reporters and editors to discuss issues and coverage. Some have assembled affinity groups or caucuses of staff members — for women, Blacks, Latinos, Asian Americans and LGBTQ+ people — and involved them in newsroom decisions.At USA Today, editor in chief Nicole Carroll told us she seeks a diversity of staff participants, experiences and views in daily brainstorming sessions about news coverage. In these discussions, Carroll said, she and her editors “have found more value in diverse people’s lived experiences.” She has no prohibitions against staff members working on stories involving their identities or life experiences unless they demonstrate a strong bias.
At the Los Angeles Times, reporters and editors have many personal identities, explained editor Kevin Merida. “We find ways for our journalists to share more of that,” including first-person essays on the front page. He cited a Latina reporter’s story about the low vaccination rate in her community and a gay police reporter’s story about his own marriage and a potential U.S. Supreme Court threat to the legality of same-sex marriages.Some local television stations owned by broadcast networks are trying to increase their coverage of real life in their communities. ABC-owned stations have, for example, sent journalists from recently created “race and culture content” teams into local neighborhoods. “We have to be able to use the voices of people whose neighborhoods we don’t normally go into and tell these stories from their vantage point,” Maxine Crooks, a vice president of ABC-owned stations, told us.Claudia Milne, senior vice president of standards and practices for CBS News, pointed out that decisions about which news to cover can reflect an organization’s values, whether or not these are stated publicly, as The Post has done with its slogan, “Democracy Dies in Darkness.” Sometimes, the language used in news stories also can reflect such values.“I don’t want to throw labels like ‘racist’ or ‘lying’ around willy-nilly; the evidence should be high,” Joseph Kahn, executive editor of the New York Times, told us. “But I think it’s true that, when the evidence is there, we should not default to some mealy-mouthed, so-called neutral language that some people see this as a falsehood, while others do not. When the evidence is there, we should be clear and direct with our audience that we don’t think there are multiple sides to this question, this is a falsehood. And the person repeating this falsehood over and over is guilty of lying.”Newer, nonprofit news organizations often have launched with stated missions. The national digital news site the 19th, for example, aims to “elevate voices of women, people of color, and the LGBTQ+ community.”
Elizabeth Green, co-founder and chief executive of Chalkbeat, whose news websites across the country cover education, said it adopted antiracism as a core value. “We talk about it a lot,” she told us. “Is this what an antiracist news organization would do?”Should journalists go outside their organizations to express their own opinions on social media or take part in advocacy or protests? In these rapidly changing times, it has become a difficult question to answer.
“You can’t be an activist and be a Times journalist at the same time,” Kahn said flatly. “All of our newsroom journalists should act as if they are representing the institution that they’re working for when they’re making public comments about major issues in the news.” Perry Bacon Jr.: America should spend billions to revive local news. Noah Oppenheim, the president of NBC News, pointed out that there are many ways to influence people and leaders, and journalism is one of them. “Our position is that, if you choose journalism as your route, you are giving up some other options that are available to the general public,” he said.At the Los Angeles Times, Merida is open to the possibility that reporters might cover issues on which they actively engage. “We’re trying to find that line,” he said. “We’re trying to create an environment in which we don’t police our journalists too much. Our young people want to be participants in the world.”Both Heyward and I continue to believe that allowing journalists to express opinions on controversial social and political issues erodes the perception of their news organizations’ fairness and open-mindedness. As representatives of news outlets, they give up some personal rights to free expression. But some mission-driven operations might well choose to allow social media and political activity with their core values. It’s best for each newsroom to have a clear and consistent policy.We urge news organizations to, first, strive not just for accuracy brd on verifiable facts but also for truth — what Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward have called “the best obtainable version of the truth.” This means original journalism that includes investigating and reporting on all aspects of American life.Newsroom staff diversity should reflect the communities being covered — not just gender and ethnic diversity but also diversity of economic, educational, geographic and social backgrounds. Inclusive newsrooms should encourage their journalists to speak up and be heard by their colleagues and leaders in making decisions about coverage.News media should also be as transparent as possible about their newsgathering decisions and processes. When possible, they should hire or designate an editor to field and act on reader complaints and questions.Responsible news organizations need to develop core values by having candid, inclusive and open conversations. Making these values public could well forge a stronger connection between journalists and the public.One essential value for all Americans is the survival of democratic institutions, which are under attack on multiple fronts. Trustworthy journalism by a new generation of journalists and newsroom leaders can ensure that the news media continues to do its part to protect democracy.Replies: @Jack D, @Rusty Tailgate, @Gabe Ruth, @Anon, @Muggles, @anonymous, @Jonathan Mason, @Poirot
Except what is being promoted here is neither accuracy nor fairness nor any of what Downie listed, it’s “diverse people’s lived experiences,” i.e. printing as fact claims that may be true, or may be made-up stories, but will not be verified by editors.
I doubt that commentators such as O’Reilly, Jesse Kelly, Levin and a multitude of others would be where they are if the three letter news organizations could be relied upon to provide truthful, unadulterated news.
It’s the lies, adjectives and adverbs, stupid!
To be fair in the 1990s the press did find it worthwhile to investigate Clinton imbroglios even if most media members detested his opponents more. Compare that to today’s silence or even gaslighting of anything critical of the regime.Replies: @Feryl
2002-2005, Post 9/11 but before George Bush became a complete joke. Bush became so hated that many libs started to derisively mock ALL republicans. And to be fair to Millennials, they were largely disinterested in politics before the late 2000’s but once they got older they associated mainstream conservatism with Bush and low-grade Boomer talk radio. Older generations don’t realize that Millennials grew up in a culture where Republicans had already won (Clinton himself was as pro-deregulation and anti-labor as any 1970’s Republican). Why would it be cool to be a Republican?
I would say that the media in general was less corrupt back then than it is now. But the media de-regulation of the late 90’s permitted a lot of consolidation which had a ruinous effect on investigative journalism (before the late 90’s it wasn’t unheard of to see stories about CIA drug trafficking and the like in mainstream newspapers and magazines).
Looking back I would say that circa 1995 is when things really started going downhill in terms of greed, inequality, debased culture, etc.. That being said, the idiotic political and identity tribalism that are now the norm didn’t really take off until the late 2000’s.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
https://www.pewresearch.org/2010/03/11/millennials-the-midterms-and-the-political-landscape-beyond/
“I would say that the media in general was less corrupt back then than it is now.”
Ok, now back up your statement. What metrics are involved?
“But the media de-regulation of the late 90’s permitted a lot of consolidation which had a ruinous effect on investigative journalism (before the late 90’s it wasn’t unheard of to see stories about CIA drug trafficking and the like in mainstream”
Absolutely.
“Looking back I would say that circa 1995 is when things really started going downhill in terms of greed, inequality, debased culture, etc.. That being said, the idiotic political and identity tribalism that are now the norm didn’t really take off until the late 2000’s.”
Sources to back up your statement?Replies: @Galloway (From NI)
Uninterested = You're not interested in them.
Disinterested = They're not interested in you.
Oh, to be disinterested again...
At any rate, this is all going to get worse as the younger generations take on more important roles as they are even less committed to objectivity and free speech than the current batch.Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Feryl, @Je Suis Omar Mateen
According the General Social Survey, the Silent Generation became much more approving of homosexuals starting in the late 90’s. I do believe that there are generational differences in character, however, it’s also clear that trends and fashion affect everyone to some degree. In the early 2000’s, when youth culture was pretty bland and apolitical, I would never have envisioned that Millennials would end up being hated by elder generations for spoiling the party. But I also find it ironic and a copout that Boomers and early X-ers, who raised Millennials, are so quick to act helpless and powerless about the behavior of their own kids.
About Gen Z? They are basically Millennials on steroids. Jon Haidt says that the shift to college professors being afraid of cancellation coincided with those born in 1997 becoming college students.
This is an awful lot of words to say "What is objectivity (truth) anyway?" When you are 18 years old and stoned or drunk, it's good to philosophize with your drinking buddies that reality is not 100% rock hard like the concrete sidewalk that you just tripped and fell onto. But the next morning when you wake up and you're all bruised up, those bruises tend it indicate that it mostly is.
Objective reality DOES exist. A perfect journalist portrayal of an event will never be achieved, just like a painting of a thing will never be the thing itself. But it's the job of the journalist to get as close as humanly possible to it and not to intentionally turn away from it, to try to put aside their biases and not embrace them and flaunt them. At least if the journalist wants to have any credibility as a journalist and not as a polemicist.Replies: @Corvinus, @Post-Postmodernist
“We all had the link anyway and didn’t need your cut and paste.”
It was behind a paywall. This, the need to show the rest of the article. Be appreciative next time.
“This is an awful lot of words to say “What is objectivity (truth) anyway?””
It’s called insight. You could learn from it.
“When you are 18 years old and stoned or drunk, it’s good to philosophize with your drinking buddies that reality is not 100% rock hard like the concrete sidewalk that you just tripped and fell onto. But the next morning when you wake up and you’re all bruised up, those bruises tend it indicate that it mostly is.”
And your point?
“Objective reality DOES exist. A perfect journalist portrayal of an event will never be achieved”
Non sequitur.
“But it’s the job of the journalist to get as close as humanly possible to it and not to intentionally turn away from it, to try to put aside their biases and not embrace them and flaunt them. At least if the journalist wants to have any credibility as a journalist and not as a polemicist”
And that’s what the gist of the article is about.
And use the MORE tag.Replies: @Corvinus
About Gen Z? They are basically Millennials on steroids. Jon Haidt says that the shift to college professors being afraid of cancellation coincided with those born in 1997 becoming college students.Replies: @Corvinus
“Jon Haidt says that the shift to college professors being afraid of cancellation coincided with those born in 1997 becoming college students.”
Speaking of him….
You could learn a lot from this video.
I would say that the media in general was less corrupt back then than it is now. But the media de-regulation of the late 90's permitted a lot of consolidation which had a ruinous effect on investigative journalism (before the late 90's it wasn't unheard of to see stories about CIA drug trafficking and the like in mainstream newspapers and magazines).
Looking back I would say that circa 1995 is when things really started going downhill in terms of greed, inequality, debased culture, etc.. That being said, the idiotic political and identity tribalism that are now the norm didn't really take off until the late 2000's.Replies: @Corvinus, @ben tillman, @Reg Cæsar
“And to be fair to Millennials, they were largely disinterested in politics before the late 2000’s but once they got older they associated mainstream conservatism with Bush and low-grade Boomer talk radio.”
You have no idea what you are talking about.
https://www.pewresearch.org/2010/03/11/millennials-the-midterms-and-the-political-landscape-beyond/
“I would say that the media in general was less corrupt back then than it is now.”
Ok, now back up your statement. What metrics are involved?
“But the media de-regulation of the late 90’s permitted a lot of consolidation which had a ruinous effect on investigative journalism (before the late 90’s it wasn’t unheard of to see stories about CIA drug trafficking and the like in mainstream”
Absolutely.
“Looking back I would say that circa 1995 is when things really started going downhill in terms of greed, inequality, debased culture, etc.. That being said, the idiotic political and identity tribalism that are now the norm didn’t really take off until the late 2000’s.”
Sources to back up your statement?
Source: https://lemonparty.org/
And, in today’s diversifying newsrooms, they feel it negates many of their own identities, life experiences and cultural contexts, keeping them from pursuing truth in their work.
Right. Because they’re just the specialest little snowflakes that ever snowflaked, and it’s all about them!
I can’t wait for this debt-fueled economy to collapse so that I get to see these nauseating narcissists lowered to searching for scraps of food in dumpsters. I may starve to death myself, but if I just get to see that one time before I die, it will have all been worth it.
It was behind a paywall. This, the need to show the rest of the article. Be appreciative next time.
“This is an awful lot of words to say “What is objectivity (truth) anyway?””
It’s called insight. You could learn from it.
“When you are 18 years old and stoned or drunk, it’s good to philosophize with your drinking buddies that reality is not 100% rock hard like the concrete sidewalk that you just tripped and fell onto. But the next morning when you wake up and you’re all bruised up, those bruises tend it indicate that it mostly is.”
And your point?
“Objective reality DOES exist. A perfect journalist portrayal of an event will never be achieved”
Non sequitur.
“But it’s the job of the journalist to get as close as humanly possible to it and not to intentionally turn away from it, to try to put aside their biases and not embrace them and flaunt them. At least if the journalist wants to have any credibility as a journalist and not as a polemicist”
And that’s what the gist of the article is about.Replies: @Jack D, @Hibernian, @Mr. Anon
You get a zero for reading comprehension. He is saying the exact opposite.
And use the MORE tag.
Lol, your kind just loves to control things. Or so I’ve been told by the unz commentariat.
“He is saying the exact opposite.”
Directly from the article—We urge news organizations to, first, strive not just for accuracy brd on verifiable facts but also for truth — what Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward have called “the best obtainable version of the truth.” This means original journalism that includes investigating and reporting on all aspects of American life.
It's the Marxist model.
Whites are the oppressive bourgeois.Replies: @Vito Klein, @Prof. Woland
The bourgeoisie were always the Christian middle classes.
No, Gramscianism. They’ve captured the culture.
Which is it? Do they feel that ‘objectivity’ has taken to actually mean ‘political balance’ (I see little evidence of this at all, the two concepts seem to be articulated as clearly different in the media. Whether they are both adhered to is something else but the media has not at all lost the ability to distinguish between the two concepts) or do they actually think ‘objectivity’ doesn’t or can’t exist?
Time and again I keep pointing out that the way normie libs feel about the negatives of immigration is exactly the way normie (American) libs feel about global warming. IE, this can’t be happening because I don’t like the pro-social policy implications if it is. Everyone keeps failing to get this joke because in the US adherence to one of these beliefs is a near total predictor of not adhering to the other.
And this weird post-modern belief that objectivity doesn’t exist is just insane to me. If it is accepted as true then there can be no rational debate at all. (Indeed there can be no ‘truth’ at all, so how can it or anything be true?) And so why should anyone debate or accept another ‘reality’ being imposed on them? All must equally be untrue and useless since there is no objective reality and no reason to believe any of them has any or the proscribed effect upon it. If there was no objective reality then every action would be futile and indeed, there is zero evidence that any human being behaves as if they don’t believe in objective reality. (But then, that statement can’t be rationally accepted either since that’s just the sum of my observations of the world and there is no objective reality…)
I think a lot of them seem incapable of being able to articulate that two different, even very different perspectives or feelings about an event as meaning that an objective observation of what happened is impossible. Two perspectives born form different interests or priorities are not distinct realities. To air both perspectives is balance. To report on the objective event is objectivity. And it is simply not the case that only normie cons are the ones not accepting a objective reporting on reality, see transgenderism and immigration.
I would say that the media in general was less corrupt back then than it is now. But the media de-regulation of the late 90's permitted a lot of consolidation which had a ruinous effect on investigative journalism (before the late 90's it wasn't unheard of to see stories about CIA drug trafficking and the like in mainstream newspapers and magazines).
Looking back I would say that circa 1995 is when things really started going downhill in terms of greed, inequality, debased culture, etc.. That being said, the idiotic political and identity tribalism that are now the norm didn't really take off until the late 2000's.Replies: @Corvinus, @ben tillman, @Reg Cæsar
Why would it be cool to be a liberal or a Democrat, instead of a conservative, since the Republicans were liberals who shared all the Democrats’ beliefs and policies except the RKBA?
I would say that the media in general was less corrupt back then than it is now. But the media de-regulation of the late 90's permitted a lot of consolidation which had a ruinous effect on investigative journalism (before the late 90's it wasn't unheard of to see stories about CIA drug trafficking and the like in mainstream newspapers and magazines).
Looking back I would say that circa 1995 is when things really started going downhill in terms of greed, inequality, debased culture, etc.. That being said, the idiotic political and identity tribalism that are now the norm didn't really take off until the late 2000's.Replies: @Corvinus, @ben tillman, @Reg Cæsar
You mean uninterested. Given the size of the nanny state, no one is disinterested anymore, except perhaps the Amish.
Uninterested = You’re not interested in them.
Disinterested = They’re not interested in you.
Oh, to be disinterested again…
My parents complained about the commies in the media from the time they became more politically aware… the Goldwater campaign. I wasn’t born yet, but when I later would fuss at the TV news (80’s) I would get bitter stories from them about what they’d been experiencing for decades already.
I was a kid with a newspaper in about 1978, and my dad showed me a headline for a story that blamed a violent crime on guns rather than the criminal who used the gun. Even then I was a bit baffled; why wouldn’t the bad guy be responsible for pointing and shooting? Would attempted robbery stop happening if guns had never been invented?
https://marinmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/the-manchurian-candidate_wxND88-scaled.jpgReplies: @bomag, @Haxo Angmark
Good point. We’ve entertained and acted on lots of whacked out ideas since the neolithic.
Compare that to today, where the court narrative must be pushed at all costs. Yes the DIE people couch it in individualized language of lived experience, but the stultifying demands to embrace a prepackaged narrative and exclude unhelpful stories at all costs allows for none of the irony or cynicism of the postmodern.Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease, @ic1000
“Postmodernism had a sort of happy nihilism to it, however. Most proponents mocked sacred cows of all types”
POSTMODERNIST TWAT: Ah, another fine day’s work, mocking normality, zigging against the zag, and slaughtering sacred cows. Time to relax. Oh, waiter! I’ll have a hamburger please.
WAITER: There are no more hamburgers. In fact there is no more beef of any kind. You a$$holes slaughtered all the cows, so now there will never be another hamburger, ever again. Here, have a plate of bugs. It’s what you worked so hard for.
POSTMODERNIST TWAT: B-b-but, we didn’t slaughter all the cows! Only the sacred ones!
WAITER: Well, since you destroyed the idea of the sacred, how could you tell which was which? Nope, you wound up slaughtering them all. Now eat your bugs. President Hillary’s Severed Frozen Head commands it.
Amanda Ripley: I stopped reading the news. Is the problem me — or the product?Now, the mainstream news media is coping with economic and digital disruption, along with increasing competition from misinformation on cable television and the internet. Meanwhile, American society itself has been in upheaval over discrimination against and abuse of women; persistent racism and white nationalism; police brutality and killings; the treatment of LGBTQ+ people; income inequality and social problems; immigration and the treatment of immigrants; the causes and effects of climate change; voting rights and election inequality; and even the very survival of our democracy. Reporting reliably on all of this has critically challenged newsrooms, calling into question their diversity, values and credibility.To better understand the changes happening now, I and former CBS News president Andrew Heyward, a colleague at Arizona State University’s Walter Cronkite School of Journalism, investigated the values and practices in mainstream newsrooms today, with a grant from the Stanton Foundation. What we found has convinced us that truth-seeking news media must move beyond whatever “objectivity” once meant to produce more trustworthy news. We interviewed more than 75 news leaders, journalists and other experts in mainstream print, broadcast and digital news media, many of whom also advocate such a change. This appears to be the beginning of another generational shift in American journalism.Among the news leaders who told Heyward and me that they had rejected objectivity as a coverage standard was Kathleen Carroll, former executive editor of the Associated Press. “It’s objective by whose standard?” she asked. “That standard seems to be White, educated, fairly wealthy. … And when people don’t feel like they find themselves in news coverage, it’s because they don’t fit that definition.”More and more journalists of color and younger White reporters, including LGBTQ+ people, in increasingly diverse newsrooms believe that the concept of objectivity has prevented truly accurate reporting informed by their own backgrounds, experiences and points of view.“There is some confusion about the value of good reporting versus point of view,” said current Post executive editor Sally Buzbee, who noted that many journalists want to make a difference on such issues as climate change, immigration and education. “We stress the value of reporting,” she said, “what you are able to dig up — so you (the reader) can make up your own mind.”“The consensus among younger journalists is that we got it all wrong,” Emilio Garcia-Ruiz, editor in chief of the San Francisco Chronicle, told us. “Objectivity has got to go.” Letters to the Editor: Why we’re not reading the news
Garcia-Ruiz is among a vanguard of print, broadcast and digital news leaders who have increased their newsrooms’ diversity and created new avenues of communication among their reporters and editors to discuss issues and coverage. Some have assembled affinity groups or caucuses of staff members — for women, Blacks, Latinos, Asian Americans and LGBTQ+ people — and involved them in newsroom decisions.At USA Today, editor in chief Nicole Carroll told us she seeks a diversity of staff participants, experiences and views in daily brainstorming sessions about news coverage. In these discussions, Carroll said, she and her editors “have found more value in diverse people’s lived experiences.” She has no prohibitions against staff members working on stories involving their identities or life experiences unless they demonstrate a strong bias.
At the Los Angeles Times, reporters and editors have many personal identities, explained editor Kevin Merida. “We find ways for our journalists to share more of that,” including first-person essays on the front page. He cited a Latina reporter’s story about the low vaccination rate in her community and a gay police reporter’s story about his own marriage and a potential U.S. Supreme Court threat to the legality of same-sex marriages.Some local television stations owned by broadcast networks are trying to increase their coverage of real life in their communities. ABC-owned stations have, for example, sent journalists from recently created “race and culture content” teams into local neighborhoods. “We have to be able to use the voices of people whose neighborhoods we don’t normally go into and tell these stories from their vantage point,” Maxine Crooks, a vice president of ABC-owned stations, told us.Claudia Milne, senior vice president of standards and practices for CBS News, pointed out that decisions about which news to cover can reflect an organization’s values, whether or not these are stated publicly, as The Post has done with its slogan, “Democracy Dies in Darkness.” Sometimes, the language used in news stories also can reflect such values.“I don’t want to throw labels like ‘racist’ or ‘lying’ around willy-nilly; the evidence should be high,” Joseph Kahn, executive editor of the New York Times, told us. “But I think it’s true that, when the evidence is there, we should not default to some mealy-mouthed, so-called neutral language that some people see this as a falsehood, while others do not. When the evidence is there, we should be clear and direct with our audience that we don’t think there are multiple sides to this question, this is a falsehood. And the person repeating this falsehood over and over is guilty of lying.”Newer, nonprofit news organizations often have launched with stated missions. The national digital news site the 19th, for example, aims to “elevate voices of women, people of color, and the LGBTQ+ community.”
Elizabeth Green, co-founder and chief executive of Chalkbeat, whose news websites across the country cover education, said it adopted antiracism as a core value. “We talk about it a lot,” she told us. “Is this what an antiracist news organization would do?”Should journalists go outside their organizations to express their own opinions on social media or take part in advocacy or protests? In these rapidly changing times, it has become a difficult question to answer.
“You can’t be an activist and be a Times journalist at the same time,” Kahn said flatly. “All of our newsroom journalists should act as if they are representing the institution that they’re working for when they’re making public comments about major issues in the news.” Perry Bacon Jr.: America should spend billions to revive local news. Noah Oppenheim, the president of NBC News, pointed out that there are many ways to influence people and leaders, and journalism is one of them. “Our position is that, if you choose journalism as your route, you are giving up some other options that are available to the general public,” he said.At the Los Angeles Times, Merida is open to the possibility that reporters might cover issues on which they actively engage. “We’re trying to find that line,” he said. “We’re trying to create an environment in which we don’t police our journalists too much. Our young people want to be participants in the world.”Both Heyward and I continue to believe that allowing journalists to express opinions on controversial social and political issues erodes the perception of their news organizations’ fairness and open-mindedness. As representatives of news outlets, they give up some personal rights to free expression. But some mission-driven operations might well choose to allow social media and political activity with their core values. It’s best for each newsroom to have a clear and consistent policy.We urge news organizations to, first, strive not just for accuracy brd on verifiable facts but also for truth — what Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward have called “the best obtainable version of the truth.” This means original journalism that includes investigating and reporting on all aspects of American life.Newsroom staff diversity should reflect the communities being covered — not just gender and ethnic diversity but also diversity of economic, educational, geographic and social backgrounds. Inclusive newsrooms should encourage their journalists to speak up and be heard by their colleagues and leaders in making decisions about coverage.News media should also be as transparent as possible about their newsgathering decisions and processes. When possible, they should hire or designate an editor to field and act on reader complaints and questions.Responsible news organizations need to develop core values by having candid, inclusive and open conversations. Making these values public could well forge a stronger connection between journalists and the public.One essential value for all Americans is the survival of democratic institutions, which are under attack on multiple fronts. Trustworthy journalism by a new generation of journalists and newsroom leaders can ensure that the news media continues to do its part to protect democracy.Replies: @Jack D, @Rusty Tailgate, @Gabe Ruth, @Anon, @Muggles, @anonymous, @Jonathan Mason, @Poirot
“in the field” smh do better asshole
Amanda Ripley: I stopped reading the news. Is the problem me — or the product?Now, the mainstream news media is coping with economic and digital disruption, along with increasing competition from misinformation on cable television and the internet. Meanwhile, American society itself has been in upheaval over discrimination against and abuse of women; persistent racism and white nationalism; police brutality and killings; the treatment of LGBTQ+ people; income inequality and social problems; immigration and the treatment of immigrants; the causes and effects of climate change; voting rights and election inequality; and even the very survival of our democracy. Reporting reliably on all of this has critically challenged newsrooms, calling into question their diversity, values and credibility.To better understand the changes happening now, I and former CBS News president Andrew Heyward, a colleague at Arizona State University’s Walter Cronkite School of Journalism, investigated the values and practices in mainstream newsrooms today, with a grant from the Stanton Foundation. What we found has convinced us that truth-seeking news media must move beyond whatever “objectivity” once meant to produce more trustworthy news. We interviewed more than 75 news leaders, journalists and other experts in mainstream print, broadcast and digital news media, many of whom also advocate such a change. This appears to be the beginning of another generational shift in American journalism.Among the news leaders who told Heyward and me that they had rejected objectivity as a coverage standard was Kathleen Carroll, former executive editor of the Associated Press. “It’s objective by whose standard?” she asked. “That standard seems to be White, educated, fairly wealthy. … And when people don’t feel like they find themselves in news coverage, it’s because they don’t fit that definition.”More and more journalists of color and younger White reporters, including LGBTQ+ people, in increasingly diverse newsrooms believe that the concept of objectivity has prevented truly accurate reporting informed by their own backgrounds, experiences and points of view.“There is some confusion about the value of good reporting versus point of view,” said current Post executive editor Sally Buzbee, who noted that many journalists want to make a difference on such issues as climate change, immigration and education. “We stress the value of reporting,” she said, “what you are able to dig up — so you (the reader) can make up your own mind.”“The consensus among younger journalists is that we got it all wrong,” Emilio Garcia-Ruiz, editor in chief of the San Francisco Chronicle, told us. “Objectivity has got to go.” Letters to the Editor: Why we’re not reading the news
Garcia-Ruiz is among a vanguard of print, broadcast and digital news leaders who have increased their newsrooms’ diversity and created new avenues of communication among their reporters and editors to discuss issues and coverage. Some have assembled affinity groups or caucuses of staff members — for women, Blacks, Latinos, Asian Americans and LGBTQ+ people — and involved them in newsroom decisions.At USA Today, editor in chief Nicole Carroll told us she seeks a diversity of staff participants, experiences and views in daily brainstorming sessions about news coverage. In these discussions, Carroll said, she and her editors “have found more value in diverse people’s lived experiences.” She has no prohibitions against staff members working on stories involving their identities or life experiences unless they demonstrate a strong bias.
At the Los Angeles Times, reporters and editors have many personal identities, explained editor Kevin Merida. “We find ways for our journalists to share more of that,” including first-person essays on the front page. He cited a Latina reporter’s story about the low vaccination rate in her community and a gay police reporter’s story about his own marriage and a potential U.S. Supreme Court threat to the legality of same-sex marriages.Some local television stations owned by broadcast networks are trying to increase their coverage of real life in their communities. ABC-owned stations have, for example, sent journalists from recently created “race and culture content” teams into local neighborhoods. “We have to be able to use the voices of people whose neighborhoods we don’t normally go into and tell these stories from their vantage point,” Maxine Crooks, a vice president of ABC-owned stations, told us.Claudia Milne, senior vice president of standards and practices for CBS News, pointed out that decisions about which news to cover can reflect an organization’s values, whether or not these are stated publicly, as The Post has done with its slogan, “Democracy Dies in Darkness.” Sometimes, the language used in news stories also can reflect such values.“I don’t want to throw labels like ‘racist’ or ‘lying’ around willy-nilly; the evidence should be high,” Joseph Kahn, executive editor of the New York Times, told us. “But I think it’s true that, when the evidence is there, we should not default to some mealy-mouthed, so-called neutral language that some people see this as a falsehood, while others do not. When the evidence is there, we should be clear and direct with our audience that we don’t think there are multiple sides to this question, this is a falsehood. And the person repeating this falsehood over and over is guilty of lying.”Newer, nonprofit news organizations often have launched with stated missions. The national digital news site the 19th, for example, aims to “elevate voices of women, people of color, and the LGBTQ+ community.”
Elizabeth Green, co-founder and chief executive of Chalkbeat, whose news websites across the country cover education, said it adopted antiracism as a core value. “We talk about it a lot,” she told us. “Is this what an antiracist news organization would do?”Should journalists go outside their organizations to express their own opinions on social media or take part in advocacy or protests? In these rapidly changing times, it has become a difficult question to answer.
“You can’t be an activist and be a Times journalist at the same time,” Kahn said flatly. “All of our newsroom journalists should act as if they are representing the institution that they’re working for when they’re making public comments about major issues in the news.” Perry Bacon Jr.: America should spend billions to revive local news. Noah Oppenheim, the president of NBC News, pointed out that there are many ways to influence people and leaders, and journalism is one of them. “Our position is that, if you choose journalism as your route, you are giving up some other options that are available to the general public,” he said.At the Los Angeles Times, Merida is open to the possibility that reporters might cover issues on which they actively engage. “We’re trying to find that line,” he said. “We’re trying to create an environment in which we don’t police our journalists too much. Our young people want to be participants in the world.”Both Heyward and I continue to believe that allowing journalists to express opinions on controversial social and political issues erodes the perception of their news organizations’ fairness and open-mindedness. As representatives of news outlets, they give up some personal rights to free expression. But some mission-driven operations might well choose to allow social media and political activity with their core values. It’s best for each newsroom to have a clear and consistent policy.We urge news organizations to, first, strive not just for accuracy brd on verifiable facts but also for truth — what Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward have called “the best obtainable version of the truth.” This means original journalism that includes investigating and reporting on all aspects of American life.Newsroom staff diversity should reflect the communities being covered — not just gender and ethnic diversity but also diversity of economic, educational, geographic and social backgrounds. Inclusive newsrooms should encourage their journalists to speak up and be heard by their colleagues and leaders in making decisions about coverage.News media should also be as transparent as possible about their newsgathering decisions and processes. When possible, they should hire or designate an editor to field and act on reader complaints and questions.Responsible news organizations need to develop core values by having candid, inclusive and open conversations. Making these values public could well forge a stronger connection between journalists and the public.One essential value for all Americans is the survival of democratic institutions, which are under attack on multiple fronts. Trustworthy journalism by a new generation of journalists and newsroom leaders can ensure that the news media continues to do its part to protect democracy.Replies: @Jack D, @Rusty Tailgate, @Gabe Ruth, @Anon, @Muggles, @anonymous, @Jonathan Mason, @Poirot
……..continues to do its part to protect democracy Corvinus?
Have you seen how desperate the United States Military is for recruits?
Hardly anybody believes in this place anymore, and why should they?
This nation worries about borders on the other side of the earth, but not its own. This nation apparently accepts openly rigged paper ballot election with oodles of unverifiable ballots sent to unsecured locations so activists can gobble them up and fill them out with no signature or drivers license verifications. This nation allows BLM and antifa to take over little parts of cities and beat up residents there who don’t agree with them, or tge hijacking of their neighborhoods. This nation attempts to lure people’s kids to androgynous lifestyles, and the sex-changes replete with irreversible genital mutilation and sterilization. This nation is doing nothing about investigating why over 100 food processing or farm facilities have seen fires or other damage in the past three years. No FBI, DOJ…..nothing.
Protect democracy apparently means protecting vote fraud.
“bothsidesism” is pretty good, much funnier than “whataboutism”. I’ll add it to my list of comedically Orwellian terms for flippant useage in online trolling.
*Two of the three perps were white ex-cons, one of whom said he had been gang raped by black prisoners. The prosecution itself said that one of the perps was a "racist psychopath"; it seems to me that psychopathy is a much more concerning character trait than "racism" (itself a nebulous term).Replies: @John Milton’s Ghost, @Mark G.
The 90’s is not usually seen as a radical period but was much more radical than it appears on the surface. The Boomers, particularly the former sixties radical segment, moved into positions of power in the media, education and government. Because I was interested in the subject, I can remember at that time that there were a number of books coming out by conservatives raising an alarm about the leftist takeover of higher and lower education. I read most of them. The same was true to a lesser extent in the media.
The best way to find some of the books and magazine articles related to this is get an old 1993 copy of the National Review Politically Incorrect Reference Guide. Leftists especially focused on capturing control of education and the media because of their usefulness in brainwashing the impressionable younger generation. There was a similar former sixties radical movement into government in the 90’s with one former sixties radical couple even becoming president and first lady.
This is a whiny excuse for something that was instituted long ago. Antiwhite onesideism has been the approach in newsrooms for decades. David Brinkley said the only time anyone can be objective is when they’re dead. Everyone has their own prejudices, beliefs, fears, and insights to bring to the table. You don’t try for objectivity. You try to be fair.
This is media telling us their worthless, bigoted propaganda is best.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
https://www.pewresearch.org/2010/03/11/millennials-the-midterms-and-the-political-landscape-beyond/
“I would say that the media in general was less corrupt back then than it is now.”
Ok, now back up your statement. What metrics are involved?
“But the media de-regulation of the late 90’s permitted a lot of consolidation which had a ruinous effect on investigative journalism (before the late 90’s it wasn’t unheard of to see stories about CIA drug trafficking and the like in mainstream”
Absolutely.
“Looking back I would say that circa 1995 is when things really started going downhill in terms of greed, inequality, debased culture, etc.. That being said, the idiotic political and identity tribalism that are now the norm didn’t really take off until the late 2000’s.”
Sources to back up your statement?Replies: @Galloway (From NI)
Corvinus never fails to deliver us the usual dose of midwittery.
Source: https://lemonparty.org/
The “golden era” of the U.S. News Media and U.S. political culture – of the hackneyed examples of Reagan and Tip O’Neill negotiating a budget and then having a few drinks and some backslapping after is more a product of a cohesive, sane culture born of decades of limited immigration and coerced assimilation as well as the broadly shared experience of World War II (and its economic echoes after) than of the personal civility, magnanimity, and statesmanship of the players. The things that the Greatest Generation and the Silent Generation disagreed about across parties and poles were narrow in scope, and the things that they agreed about were broad and deep – in other words, both sides saw the other as essential factions of the same polity. A Press populated by people similarly situated is going to be much better at giving the other side a hearing and looking at politics and government as a series of minor compromises rather than each event as an existential zero sum total war against moral cretins to determine “who we are” and “not who we are.” After an Election, there wasn’t the sense that you have now of the America you wake up in the next day being forever changed in ways that lack continuity with all that came before. Why wouldn’t we expect the Press to have degraded itself and to mirror the nation that it covers?
Even in the Reagan and O’Neill era, the seeds of the current decline were apparent – elite Baby Boomers were simply not in power then, and the 1992 Clinton victory swept them into power. I was young then but I recall first having the feeling that the Press really, really liked that guy and the things he stood for culturally – his success in politics and government in spite of shirking his responsibilities to service under arms, and his “power sharing” relationship with his harridan of a wife. They felt the compunction to feign objectivity at that point, but the proclivity to make a series of small compromises of integrity for political ends was apparent.
In the post-Trump era, it may just be the case that despite protestations to the contrary the Press understands that the feint of objectivity isn’t fooling anyone – its devoted readership doesn’t want objectivity, and the remainder of the public wouldn’t trust the Press to be objective anyway. From that standpoint, what is lost? I could accept that nothing of value is to be lost at this point but for the fact that the Press has taken up the nasty habit of projecting its power outwards to squelch dissenting voices and to trample on private citizens with heterodox views.
Amanda Ripley: I stopped reading the news. Is the problem me — or the product?Now, the mainstream news media is coping with economic and digital disruption, along with increasing competition from misinformation on cable television and the internet. Meanwhile, American society itself has been in upheaval over discrimination against and abuse of women; persistent racism and white nationalism; police brutality and killings; the treatment of LGBTQ+ people; income inequality and social problems; immigration and the treatment of immigrants; the causes and effects of climate change; voting rights and election inequality; and even the very survival of our democracy. Reporting reliably on all of this has critically challenged newsrooms, calling into question their diversity, values and credibility.To better understand the changes happening now, I and former CBS News president Andrew Heyward, a colleague at Arizona State University’s Walter Cronkite School of Journalism, investigated the values and practices in mainstream newsrooms today, with a grant from the Stanton Foundation. What we found has convinced us that truth-seeking news media must move beyond whatever “objectivity” once meant to produce more trustworthy news. We interviewed more than 75 news leaders, journalists and other experts in mainstream print, broadcast and digital news media, many of whom also advocate such a change. This appears to be the beginning of another generational shift in American journalism.Among the news leaders who told Heyward and me that they had rejected objectivity as a coverage standard was Kathleen Carroll, former executive editor of the Associated Press. “It’s objective by whose standard?” she asked. “That standard seems to be White, educated, fairly wealthy. … And when people don’t feel like they find themselves in news coverage, it’s because they don’t fit that definition.”More and more journalists of color and younger White reporters, including LGBTQ+ people, in increasingly diverse newsrooms believe that the concept of objectivity has prevented truly accurate reporting informed by their own backgrounds, experiences and points of view.“There is some confusion about the value of good reporting versus point of view,” said current Post executive editor Sally Buzbee, who noted that many journalists want to make a difference on such issues as climate change, immigration and education. “We stress the value of reporting,” she said, “what you are able to dig up — so you (the reader) can make up your own mind.”“The consensus among younger journalists is that we got it all wrong,” Emilio Garcia-Ruiz, editor in chief of the San Francisco Chronicle, told us. “Objectivity has got to go.” Letters to the Editor: Why we’re not reading the news
Garcia-Ruiz is among a vanguard of print, broadcast and digital news leaders who have increased their newsrooms’ diversity and created new avenues of communication among their reporters and editors to discuss issues and coverage. Some have assembled affinity groups or caucuses of staff members — for women, Blacks, Latinos, Asian Americans and LGBTQ+ people — and involved them in newsroom decisions.At USA Today, editor in chief Nicole Carroll told us she seeks a diversity of staff participants, experiences and views in daily brainstorming sessions about news coverage. In these discussions, Carroll said, she and her editors “have found more value in diverse people’s lived experiences.” She has no prohibitions against staff members working on stories involving their identities or life experiences unless they demonstrate a strong bias.
At the Los Angeles Times, reporters and editors have many personal identities, explained editor Kevin Merida. “We find ways for our journalists to share more of that,” including first-person essays on the front page. He cited a Latina reporter’s story about the low vaccination rate in her community and a gay police reporter’s story about his own marriage and a potential U.S. Supreme Court threat to the legality of same-sex marriages.Some local television stations owned by broadcast networks are trying to increase their coverage of real life in their communities. ABC-owned stations have, for example, sent journalists from recently created “race and culture content” teams into local neighborhoods. “We have to be able to use the voices of people whose neighborhoods we don’t normally go into and tell these stories from their vantage point,” Maxine Crooks, a vice president of ABC-owned stations, told us.Claudia Milne, senior vice president of standards and practices for CBS News, pointed out that decisions about which news to cover can reflect an organization’s values, whether or not these are stated publicly, as The Post has done with its slogan, “Democracy Dies in Darkness.” Sometimes, the language used in news stories also can reflect such values.“I don’t want to throw labels like ‘racist’ or ‘lying’ around willy-nilly; the evidence should be high,” Joseph Kahn, executive editor of the New York Times, told us. “But I think it’s true that, when the evidence is there, we should not default to some mealy-mouthed, so-called neutral language that some people see this as a falsehood, while others do not. When the evidence is there, we should be clear and direct with our audience that we don’t think there are multiple sides to this question, this is a falsehood. And the person repeating this falsehood over and over is guilty of lying.”Newer, nonprofit news organizations often have launched with stated missions. The national digital news site the 19th, for example, aims to “elevate voices of women, people of color, and the LGBTQ+ community.”
Elizabeth Green, co-founder and chief executive of Chalkbeat, whose news websites across the country cover education, said it adopted antiracism as a core value. “We talk about it a lot,” she told us. “Is this what an antiracist news organization would do?”Should journalists go outside their organizations to express their own opinions on social media or take part in advocacy or protests? In these rapidly changing times, it has become a difficult question to answer.
“You can’t be an activist and be a Times journalist at the same time,” Kahn said flatly. “All of our newsroom journalists should act as if they are representing the institution that they’re working for when they’re making public comments about major issues in the news.” Perry Bacon Jr.: America should spend billions to revive local news. Noah Oppenheim, the president of NBC News, pointed out that there are many ways to influence people and leaders, and journalism is one of them. “Our position is that, if you choose journalism as your route, you are giving up some other options that are available to the general public,” he said.At the Los Angeles Times, Merida is open to the possibility that reporters might cover issues on which they actively engage. “We’re trying to find that line,” he said. “We’re trying to create an environment in which we don’t police our journalists too much. Our young people want to be participants in the world.”Both Heyward and I continue to believe that allowing journalists to express opinions on controversial social and political issues erodes the perception of their news organizations’ fairness and open-mindedness. As representatives of news outlets, they give up some personal rights to free expression. But some mission-driven operations might well choose to allow social media and political activity with their core values. It’s best for each newsroom to have a clear and consistent policy.We urge news organizations to, first, strive not just for accuracy brd on verifiable facts but also for truth — what Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward have called “the best obtainable version of the truth.” This means original journalism that includes investigating and reporting on all aspects of American life.Newsroom staff diversity should reflect the communities being covered — not just gender and ethnic diversity but also diversity of economic, educational, geographic and social backgrounds. Inclusive newsrooms should encourage their journalists to speak up and be heard by their colleagues and leaders in making decisions about coverage.News media should also be as transparent as possible about their newsgathering decisions and processes. When possible, they should hire or designate an editor to field and act on reader complaints and questions.Responsible news organizations need to develop core values by having candid, inclusive and open conversations. Making these values public could well forge a stronger connection between journalists and the public.One essential value for all Americans is the survival of democratic institutions, which are under attack on multiple fronts. Trustworthy journalism by a new generation of journalists and newsroom leaders can ensure that the news media continues to do its part to protect democracy.Replies: @Jack D, @Rusty Tailgate, @Gabe Ruth, @Anon, @Muggles, @anonymous, @Jonathan Mason, @Poirot
To this well known troll and his tedious defense of unreality, here’s a suggestion.
Find a tall parking structure and jump off the top level.
You will discover objective reality at the bottom.
I wish you had done this years ago…
He isn't. Just a writer of the conventional wisdom. If there's a super power involved, it's "being patronizing." Even with that proviso, he's representative of millions of fellow citizens (if you're American).
One way or another, however this all plays out, 'we' are going to have to continue living with 'them.'
(A thought prompted by a recent visit to Spain.)
Objectivity...the new Flying Spaghetti Monster.Replies: @Forbes, @SMK
All media is entertainment.
So-called news media has been producing narrative accounts of what they want you to know, while omitting inconvenient facts for as long as I’ve been reading, well, newspapers. TV & cable are no different, as extensions of the same hype and outage viewership for advert-driven revenue model.
As my older brothers used to say (in the ’60s), when I replied with something I’d read, “do you believe everything you read in the newspaper?”
There’s nothing new under the sun, especially when it comes to mendacious reporting by media.
It was behind a paywall. This, the need to show the rest of the article. Be appreciative next time.
“This is an awful lot of words to say “What is objectivity (truth) anyway?””
It’s called insight. You could learn from it.
“When you are 18 years old and stoned or drunk, it’s good to philosophize with your drinking buddies that reality is not 100% rock hard like the concrete sidewalk that you just tripped and fell onto. But the next morning when you wake up and you’re all bruised up, those bruises tend it indicate that it mostly is.”
And your point?
“Objective reality DOES exist. A perfect journalist portrayal of an event will never be achieved”
Non sequitur.
“But it’s the job of the journalist to get as close as humanly possible to it and not to intentionally turn away from it, to try to put aside their biases and not embrace them and flaunt them. At least if the journalist wants to have any credibility as a journalist and not as a polemicist”
And that’s what the gist of the article is about.Replies: @Jack D, @Hibernian, @Mr. Anon
No loss in this instance.
Well you won’t see any mention in The Grauniad today about these pieces it published in the before times (That’s before they threw Assange under the bus).
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/30/russia-ukraine-war-kiev-conflict
Or
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/13/ukraine-us-war-russia-john-pilger
You can stop right there. Objectivity leads to false balance. Think about that.
Downie has decided that the writer’s perspective is more important than reporting the facts (and information) as presented by the event reported upon. They’ve moved on from presenting to the public what they should know based on reporting objectively, i.e., balance.
No. What he proposes is merely standardizing what has been going on for decades (at least), that is, telling you what to think–not what to thing about, by presenting the event reported objectively.
I’ll date it to the abortion battle. When Roe was handed down in 1973, I was a child horrified, having seen books on fetal development, and fetuses in bottles at the local museum, and being the product of a hasty marriage myself. I believed that abortion is the murder of a human being and the desecration of a woman, and still do.
But I kept silent about it until around 1990, having been thoroughly propagandized by the news and entertainment media that abortion opponents were all Jesse Helms and Jerry Falwell, Bible-bashing women dominators.
17 years believing the propaganda, until I was driven by the birth of my own child to actually meet people actively fighting abortion.
Objectivity...the new Flying Spaghetti Monster.Replies: @Forbes, @SMK
“Journalistic objectivity,” especially in regard to blacks, has been dead in the left-wing MSM since the 1969s, to the extent that it ever truly prevailed. And such indoctrination and propaganda and the lies and delusions will be increasingly biased and anti-white and pro-black and “brown” in the future as the left-wing MSM is increasingly ruled and vitiated by blacks and “browns” and their white enablers and sycophants.
Amanda Ripley: I stopped reading the news. Is the problem me — or the product?Now, the mainstream news media is coping with economic and digital disruption, along with increasing competition from misinformation on cable television and the internet. Meanwhile, American society itself has been in upheaval over discrimination against and abuse of women; persistent racism and white nationalism; police brutality and killings; the treatment of LGBTQ+ people; income inequality and social problems; immigration and the treatment of immigrants; the causes and effects of climate change; voting rights and election inequality; and even the very survival of our democracy. Reporting reliably on all of this has critically challenged newsrooms, calling into question their diversity, values and credibility.To better understand the changes happening now, I and former CBS News president Andrew Heyward, a colleague at Arizona State University’s Walter Cronkite School of Journalism, investigated the values and practices in mainstream newsrooms today, with a grant from the Stanton Foundation. What we found has convinced us that truth-seeking news media must move beyond whatever “objectivity” once meant to produce more trustworthy news. We interviewed more than 75 news leaders, journalists and other experts in mainstream print, broadcast and digital news media, many of whom also advocate such a change. This appears to be the beginning of another generational shift in American journalism.Among the news leaders who told Heyward and me that they had rejected objectivity as a coverage standard was Kathleen Carroll, former executive editor of the Associated Press. “It’s objective by whose standard?” she asked. “That standard seems to be White, educated, fairly wealthy. … And when people don’t feel like they find themselves in news coverage, it’s because they don’t fit that definition.”More and more journalists of color and younger White reporters, including LGBTQ+ people, in increasingly diverse newsrooms believe that the concept of objectivity has prevented truly accurate reporting informed by their own backgrounds, experiences and points of view.“There is some confusion about the value of good reporting versus point of view,” said current Post executive editor Sally Buzbee, who noted that many journalists want to make a difference on such issues as climate change, immigration and education. “We stress the value of reporting,” she said, “what you are able to dig up — so you (the reader) can make up your own mind.”“The consensus among younger journalists is that we got it all wrong,” Emilio Garcia-Ruiz, editor in chief of the San Francisco Chronicle, told us. “Objectivity has got to go.” Letters to the Editor: Why we’re not reading the news
Garcia-Ruiz is among a vanguard of print, broadcast and digital news leaders who have increased their newsrooms’ diversity and created new avenues of communication among their reporters and editors to discuss issues and coverage. Some have assembled affinity groups or caucuses of staff members — for women, Blacks, Latinos, Asian Americans and LGBTQ+ people — and involved them in newsroom decisions.At USA Today, editor in chief Nicole Carroll told us she seeks a diversity of staff participants, experiences and views in daily brainstorming sessions about news coverage. In these discussions, Carroll said, she and her editors “have found more value in diverse people’s lived experiences.” She has no prohibitions against staff members working on stories involving their identities or life experiences unless they demonstrate a strong bias.
At the Los Angeles Times, reporters and editors have many personal identities, explained editor Kevin Merida. “We find ways for our journalists to share more of that,” including first-person essays on the front page. He cited a Latina reporter’s story about the low vaccination rate in her community and a gay police reporter’s story about his own marriage and a potential U.S. Supreme Court threat to the legality of same-sex marriages.Some local television stations owned by broadcast networks are trying to increase their coverage of real life in their communities. ABC-owned stations have, for example, sent journalists from recently created “race and culture content” teams into local neighborhoods. “We have to be able to use the voices of people whose neighborhoods we don’t normally go into and tell these stories from their vantage point,” Maxine Crooks, a vice president of ABC-owned stations, told us.Claudia Milne, senior vice president of standards and practices for CBS News, pointed out that decisions about which news to cover can reflect an organization’s values, whether or not these are stated publicly, as The Post has done with its slogan, “Democracy Dies in Darkness.” Sometimes, the language used in news stories also can reflect such values.“I don’t want to throw labels like ‘racist’ or ‘lying’ around willy-nilly; the evidence should be high,” Joseph Kahn, executive editor of the New York Times, told us. “But I think it’s true that, when the evidence is there, we should not default to some mealy-mouthed, so-called neutral language that some people see this as a falsehood, while others do not. When the evidence is there, we should be clear and direct with our audience that we don’t think there are multiple sides to this question, this is a falsehood. And the person repeating this falsehood over and over is guilty of lying.”Newer, nonprofit news organizations often have launched with stated missions. The national digital news site the 19th, for example, aims to “elevate voices of women, people of color, and the LGBTQ+ community.”
Elizabeth Green, co-founder and chief executive of Chalkbeat, whose news websites across the country cover education, said it adopted antiracism as a core value. “We talk about it a lot,” she told us. “Is this what an antiracist news organization would do?”Should journalists go outside their organizations to express their own opinions on social media or take part in advocacy or protests? In these rapidly changing times, it has become a difficult question to answer.
“You can’t be an activist and be a Times journalist at the same time,” Kahn said flatly. “All of our newsroom journalists should act as if they are representing the institution that they’re working for when they’re making public comments about major issues in the news.” Perry Bacon Jr.: America should spend billions to revive local news. Noah Oppenheim, the president of NBC News, pointed out that there are many ways to influence people and leaders, and journalism is one of them. “Our position is that, if you choose journalism as your route, you are giving up some other options that are available to the general public,” he said.At the Los Angeles Times, Merida is open to the possibility that reporters might cover issues on which they actively engage. “We’re trying to find that line,” he said. “We’re trying to create an environment in which we don’t police our journalists too much. Our young people want to be participants in the world.”Both Heyward and I continue to believe that allowing journalists to express opinions on controversial social and political issues erodes the perception of their news organizations’ fairness and open-mindedness. As representatives of news outlets, they give up some personal rights to free expression. But some mission-driven operations might well choose to allow social media and political activity with their core values. It’s best for each newsroom to have a clear and consistent policy.We urge news organizations to, first, strive not just for accuracy brd on verifiable facts but also for truth — what Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward have called “the best obtainable version of the truth.” This means original journalism that includes investigating and reporting on all aspects of American life.Newsroom staff diversity should reflect the communities being covered — not just gender and ethnic diversity but also diversity of economic, educational, geographic and social backgrounds. Inclusive newsrooms should encourage their journalists to speak up and be heard by their colleagues and leaders in making decisions about coverage.News media should also be as transparent as possible about their newsgathering decisions and processes. When possible, they should hire or designate an editor to field and act on reader complaints and questions.Responsible news organizations need to develop core values by having candid, inclusive and open conversations. Making these values public could well forge a stronger connection between journalists and the public.One essential value for all Americans is the survival of democratic institutions, which are under attack on multiple fronts. Trustworthy journalism by a new generation of journalists and newsroom leaders can ensure that the news media continues to do its part to protect democracy.Replies: @Jack D, @Rusty Tailgate, @Gabe Ruth, @Anon, @Muggles, @anonymous, @Jonathan Mason, @Poirot
“I never understood what “objectivity” meant. I didn’t consider it a standard for our newsroom. My goals for our journalism were instead accuracy, fairness, nonpartisanship, accountability and the pursuit of truth.”
Your goals, as you call them, do indeed indicate that you did understand what objectivity meant.
As far as whether the MSM has ever objective in my life, I think it was more so in the 1960s on any subject except race. There was always a soft spot for the long-suffering Negro. However, a frequently used phrase in coverage of the '60s race riots was "roving bands of Negro youths," so at least it was honest about who was doing what. In 1977, there was terrible rioting and looting during the 1977 blackout in NYC. The New Yorker published an editorial justifying it that so amazed me I cut it out for my files.
In the '80s I subscribed to Reed Irvine's newsletter Accuracy in Media, which analyzed the liberal bias of stories in the MSM. So, I would say it has always had a bias, it just keeps getting more obvious and extreme.Replies: @Forbes
Harry–I had an older friend (now deceased) who was surprised when I told him I no longer read the NYT, having dropped it during the 2000 presidential campaign. This was probably in ’06-’07. A few years later he finally gave up the NYT in disgust–and admitted I was right when I had dropped it. He realized he had held on out of his morning habit rather than any other reason to read the paper.
Of course Joni Mitchell removed her music from Spotify, joining Neil Young’s demand that Spotify remove Joe Rogan for spreading “misinformation” about COVID and vaccines. When it comes to medical marshal law and what is in the interest of enormously powerful multi-national corporations like Pfizer, Joni Mitchell only looks at things from one side now.
https://www.theverge.com/2022/1/29/22907696/joni-mitchell-spotify-joe-rogan-podcast-misinformation-covid-19
Funny how so many of those hippy-dippy flower people became authoritarians.
Judy Collins sang that song better anyway:
But in the late 80's/90's, many music artists did buy into paranoia about a Religious Right take-over as well as Environmentalist alarmism, so explicitly Left-wing lyrics became more prevalent. Many "alternative" artists in the 90's explicitly became pro-abortion and feminist activists. Not that it was always explicitly stated in lyrics, but they did promote this stuff in interviews and in encouraging activists to attend concerts and festivals and pass out propaganda.Replies: @Mr. Anon
Find a tall parking structure and jump off the top level.
You will discover objective reality at the bottom.
I wish you had done this years ago...Replies: @Corvinus, @ic1000
Lol, you stoop to the bottom of the brainstorms when you make comments like that. But it’s in your wheelhouse so you just can’t help it.
Of course you are a WaPo Clown-a propaganda mouthpiece for the "Elite" SatanistPedos -- a pimp for the CIA pushing lies in a "Newspaper" so bad and dishonest it makes Pravda look like a bastion of honesty.
Just one example--your "Religion" reporter of many years - publishing negatives for years as to and against Christianity - then retires finally and writes a book - in which she finally reveals that she is a Witch who "casts spells" - one of which she thinks killed someone.
This is the level of "honesty" of the WaPo- placing a Satanist/Witch in as their "Religion Reporter" and never revealing it of course as said witch insults Christians for numerous years. Scum is a mild description of WaPo "Reporters".
The good news is the majority are waking up and more and more have no trust in you paid propagandist/liars. Truly for the damage you all have done his comment was too kind.
And use the MORE tag.Replies: @Corvinus
“And use the MORE tag“
Lol, your kind just loves to control things. Or so I’ve been told by the unz commentariat.
“He is saying the exact opposite.”
Directly from the article—We urge news organizations to, first, strive not just for accuracy brd on verifiable facts but also for truth — what Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward have called “the best obtainable version of the truth.” This means original journalism that includes investigating and reporting on all aspects of American life.
https://marinmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/the-manchurian-candidate_wxND88-scaled.jpgReplies: @bomag, @Haxo Angmark
neat thing about The Manchurian Candidate
was that the Hollywood bolsheviks intended it to be a parody
of “anti-communist paranoia”. But did it up so cleverly
that most average people who saw it it took it 2B
a close study of communist infiltration.
It was behind a paywall. This, the need to show the rest of the article. Be appreciative next time.
“This is an awful lot of words to say “What is objectivity (truth) anyway?””
It’s called insight. You could learn from it.
“When you are 18 years old and stoned or drunk, it’s good to philosophize with your drinking buddies that reality is not 100% rock hard like the concrete sidewalk that you just tripped and fell onto. But the next morning when you wake up and you’re all bruised up, those bruises tend it indicate that it mostly is.”
And your point?
“Objective reality DOES exist. A perfect journalist portrayal of an event will never be achieved”
Non sequitur.
“But it’s the job of the journalist to get as close as humanly possible to it and not to intentionally turn away from it, to try to put aside their biases and not embrace them and flaunt them. At least if the journalist wants to have any credibility as a journalist and not as a polemicist”
And that’s what the gist of the article is about.Replies: @Jack D, @Hibernian, @Mr. Anon
There is many orders of magnitude more insight in a single Sudoku puzzle that Jack D worked while sitting in his Barcalounger watching Jeopardy, than in every single word you have ever written here combined.
I don’t even always agree with Jack D. Often don’t. But he is not a moron.
You are.
Fitting given that Uncle Walter was a globalist stooge.
Journalism as propaganda is nothing new. Almost all political and policy journalism is propaganda and always has been. Now at least it will be less obscured by claims to objectivity.
At any rate, this is all going to get worse as the younger generations take on more important roles as they are even less committed to objectivity and free speech than the current batch.Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Feryl, @Je Suis Omar Mateen
“At any rate, this is all going to get worse as the younger generations take on more important roles as they are even less committed to objectivity and free speech than the current batch.”
Unlike GenX, Millennials and younger cohorts love hoaxes. Because they derive all their life meaning from fake things in cyberspace, they are very enthusiastic when they can partake of fake things in meatspace; viz: the covid hoax and facediapering. 90% of harassment re diapering came from young people and almost NONE came from GenX.
Before the Millennials, GenX was the most hoaxed generation and we resented the endless litany of acid rain, The Big One, AIDS, the ozone hole and dozens of other hoaxes purveyed thru the 1980s and 90s because we derived meaning from real things in the real world, whereas Millennialtards and GenZ spend 99.9% of their lives staring at a fake world on a tiny screen, so they don’t resent the endless fakery of endless hoaxes like globalclimatecrisischange, covid, and chix with dix because their entire existence is a hoax.
Amanda Ripley: I stopped reading the news. Is the problem me — or the product?Now, the mainstream news media is coping with economic and digital disruption, along with increasing competition from misinformation on cable television and the internet. Meanwhile, American society itself has been in upheaval over discrimination against and abuse of women; persistent racism and white nationalism; police brutality and killings; the treatment of LGBTQ+ people; income inequality and social problems; immigration and the treatment of immigrants; the causes and effects of climate change; voting rights and election inequality; and even the very survival of our democracy. Reporting reliably on all of this has critically challenged newsrooms, calling into question their diversity, values and credibility.To better understand the changes happening now, I and former CBS News president Andrew Heyward, a colleague at Arizona State University’s Walter Cronkite School of Journalism, investigated the values and practices in mainstream newsrooms today, with a grant from the Stanton Foundation. What we found has convinced us that truth-seeking news media must move beyond whatever “objectivity” once meant to produce more trustworthy news. We interviewed more than 75 news leaders, journalists and other experts in mainstream print, broadcast and digital news media, many of whom also advocate such a change. This appears to be the beginning of another generational shift in American journalism.Among the news leaders who told Heyward and me that they had rejected objectivity as a coverage standard was Kathleen Carroll, former executive editor of the Associated Press. “It’s objective by whose standard?” she asked. “That standard seems to be White, educated, fairly wealthy. … And when people don’t feel like they find themselves in news coverage, it’s because they don’t fit that definition.”More and more journalists of color and younger White reporters, including LGBTQ+ people, in increasingly diverse newsrooms believe that the concept of objectivity has prevented truly accurate reporting informed by their own backgrounds, experiences and points of view.“There is some confusion about the value of good reporting versus point of view,” said current Post executive editor Sally Buzbee, who noted that many journalists want to make a difference on such issues as climate change, immigration and education. “We stress the value of reporting,” she said, “what you are able to dig up — so you (the reader) can make up your own mind.”“The consensus among younger journalists is that we got it all wrong,” Emilio Garcia-Ruiz, editor in chief of the San Francisco Chronicle, told us. “Objectivity has got to go.” Letters to the Editor: Why we’re not reading the news
Garcia-Ruiz is among a vanguard of print, broadcast and digital news leaders who have increased their newsrooms’ diversity and created new avenues of communication among their reporters and editors to discuss issues and coverage. Some have assembled affinity groups or caucuses of staff members — for women, Blacks, Latinos, Asian Americans and LGBTQ+ people — and involved them in newsroom decisions.At USA Today, editor in chief Nicole Carroll told us she seeks a diversity of staff participants, experiences and views in daily brainstorming sessions about news coverage. In these discussions, Carroll said, she and her editors “have found more value in diverse people’s lived experiences.” She has no prohibitions against staff members working on stories involving their identities or life experiences unless they demonstrate a strong bias.
At the Los Angeles Times, reporters and editors have many personal identities, explained editor Kevin Merida. “We find ways for our journalists to share more of that,” including first-person essays on the front page. He cited a Latina reporter’s story about the low vaccination rate in her community and a gay police reporter’s story about his own marriage and a potential U.S. Supreme Court threat to the legality of same-sex marriages.Some local television stations owned by broadcast networks are trying to increase their coverage of real life in their communities. ABC-owned stations have, for example, sent journalists from recently created “race and culture content” teams into local neighborhoods. “We have to be able to use the voices of people whose neighborhoods we don’t normally go into and tell these stories from their vantage point,” Maxine Crooks, a vice president of ABC-owned stations, told us.Claudia Milne, senior vice president of standards and practices for CBS News, pointed out that decisions about which news to cover can reflect an organization’s values, whether or not these are stated publicly, as The Post has done with its slogan, “Democracy Dies in Darkness.” Sometimes, the language used in news stories also can reflect such values.“I don’t want to throw labels like ‘racist’ or ‘lying’ around willy-nilly; the evidence should be high,” Joseph Kahn, executive editor of the New York Times, told us. “But I think it’s true that, when the evidence is there, we should not default to some mealy-mouthed, so-called neutral language that some people see this as a falsehood, while others do not. When the evidence is there, we should be clear and direct with our audience that we don’t think there are multiple sides to this question, this is a falsehood. And the person repeating this falsehood over and over is guilty of lying.”Newer, nonprofit news organizations often have launched with stated missions. The national digital news site the 19th, for example, aims to “elevate voices of women, people of color, and the LGBTQ+ community.”
Elizabeth Green, co-founder and chief executive of Chalkbeat, whose news websites across the country cover education, said it adopted antiracism as a core value. “We talk about it a lot,” she told us. “Is this what an antiracist news organization would do?”Should journalists go outside their organizations to express their own opinions on social media or take part in advocacy or protests? In these rapidly changing times, it has become a difficult question to answer.
“You can’t be an activist and be a Times journalist at the same time,” Kahn said flatly. “All of our newsroom journalists should act as if they are representing the institution that they’re working for when they’re making public comments about major issues in the news.” Perry Bacon Jr.: America should spend billions to revive local news. Noah Oppenheim, the president of NBC News, pointed out that there are many ways to influence people and leaders, and journalism is one of them. “Our position is that, if you choose journalism as your route, you are giving up some other options that are available to the general public,” he said.At the Los Angeles Times, Merida is open to the possibility that reporters might cover issues on which they actively engage. “We’re trying to find that line,” he said. “We’re trying to create an environment in which we don’t police our journalists too much. Our young people want to be participants in the world.”Both Heyward and I continue to believe that allowing journalists to express opinions on controversial social and political issues erodes the perception of their news organizations’ fairness and open-mindedness. As representatives of news outlets, they give up some personal rights to free expression. But some mission-driven operations might well choose to allow social media and political activity with their core values. It’s best for each newsroom to have a clear and consistent policy.We urge news organizations to, first, strive not just for accuracy brd on verifiable facts but also for truth — what Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward have called “the best obtainable version of the truth.” This means original journalism that includes investigating and reporting on all aspects of American life.Newsroom staff diversity should reflect the communities being covered — not just gender and ethnic diversity but also diversity of economic, educational, geographic and social backgrounds. Inclusive newsrooms should encourage their journalists to speak up and be heard by their colleagues and leaders in making decisions about coverage.News media should also be as transparent as possible about their newsgathering decisions and processes. When possible, they should hire or designate an editor to field and act on reader complaints and questions.Responsible news organizations need to develop core values by having candid, inclusive and open conversations. Making these values public could well forge a stronger connection between journalists and the public.One essential value for all Americans is the survival of democratic institutions, which are under attack on multiple fronts. Trustworthy journalism by a new generation of journalists and newsroom leaders can ensure that the news media continues to do its part to protect democracy.Replies: @Jack D, @Rusty Tailgate, @Gabe Ruth, @Anon, @Muggles, @anonymous, @Jonathan Mason, @Poirot
A British journalist whose funeral I once attended once said: “History is written by the victors.”
Obviously this is the reason why Greek and Roman history portrays the Greeks and Romans as the good guys in togas and sandals and the rest of us as bareassed barbarians sporting tattoos of woad.
Tomorrow in the English Premier soccer League Nottingham Forest will be playing against Leeds United. You can be pretty sure that the final score will be reported accurately, but depending from which side the match report is told, there will be different versions including additional details such as explaining what the score ought to have been if it was fair, what egregious errors were made by the referee, and so on.
If you read the report in The Guardian tomorrow, there will also be about 150 comments by readers. If you want to know even more, you should be able to see a 15 minute condensed version of the match on YouTube, so that you can form your own opinion.
This is human nature. It is the way things work. However if you are going to write a match report for readers of a newspaper that has fans of both sides as well as neutrals, then you have to try to be reasonably objective. That is all.
Journalists should at least know that there is a difference between straightforward reporting of factual news and writing an opinion column, in which the writer draws on their own experience and perspective and shares it with the readers in a manner that helps to persuade Rita’s to share their point of view.
Obviously in a multiracial society there will be different news media in which it is understood that there is an overall slant in a particular direction.
For example The Guardian is generally perceived as somewhat anti-American. Since Leeds United have three American players and an American manager and coach, they are sometimes known by wits as Leeds United States of America. See tomorrow’s report on the match in The Guardian to see if you can spot anti-American bias on the sports pages.
You can take it back at least as far as the aftermath of World War I and the Russian revolution without really resolving the issue.
But then perhaps the real issue is not whose fault it is, but that the complete failure of international diplomacy, summitry, G7, and the United Nations to get anywhere close to resolving the issue is really depressing, considering that only a few years ago some people thought we had reached the end of History.
No wonder journalists cannot make head nor tail of it.
I always get Leeds and Leicester mixed up. Now they're both in the Premier. Burnley (who?) Is on track to join them next year, as is Sheffield United. Sheffield Wednesday can take United's place in "the Championship" (the second tier), as they lead League One (the third-- truth in advertising?)
Wednesday-- owned by a Thai tuna tycoon--, besides having the best club name in England, is the obvious choice of Steve Sailer and Bill Cosby:
https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BNDZjY2ZlNTIt[email protected]._V1_.jpgReplies: @Jonathan Mason
However, there are some issues that can never be reported objectively. For example, whose fault is the war in Ukraine?
You can take it back at least as far as the aftermath of World War I and the Russian revolution without really resolving the issue.
But then perhaps the real issue is not whose fault it is, but that the complete failure of international diplomacy, summitry, G7, and the United Nations to get anywhere close to resolving the issue is really depressing, considering that only a few years ago some people thought we had reached the end of History.
No wonder journalists cannot make head nor tail of it.
We don’t need no stinking objectivity!
Find a tall parking structure and jump off the top level.
You will discover objective reality at the bottom.
I wish you had done this years ago...Replies: @Corvinus, @ic1000
If that commenter was sui generis, he might — might — merit a personal Two Minutes Hate.
He isn’t. Just a writer of the conventional wisdom. If there’s a super power involved, it’s “being patronizing.” Even with that proviso, he’s representative of millions of fellow citizens (if you’re American).
One way or another, however this all plays out, ‘we’ are going to have to continue living with ‘them.’
(A thought prompted by a recent visit to Spain.)
Sorry. As is usual with these dumbass, rile up the masses for no reason, one-word controversies, it’s actually more complicated than that.
Say you give the whowhatwhywherewhenhow of a grisly murder. And that’s all.
Well, that’s objectivity at its finest.
But if you don’t say, “and that’s a bad thing,” then people will assume you are condoning it. Because you reported it. Because, unless you say otherwise, reporting (objectively or not) is condoning.
You can’t outrun subjectivity. It always sneaks around the corner like some mangy rabid dog and bites you in the ass.
Some commentators have made the point the the rise of CNN and subsequent cable 24 hour a day ‘news’ stations were the tipping point. Prior to that, people consumed news through a daily paper and maybe an hour of TV in the evening, so the media was probably a bit more responsible in what they chose to cover because the average person’s access and appetite for news was fairly limited.
The dawn of all-news all the time TV meant that these outlets had to generate content because there just isn’t enough news of consequence to fill the entire day. More soft and opinion programming came around, new stations competed with each other, and even somewhat staid print publications had to follow suit. Then comes the internet, smartphones, and social media and the access of hundreds of millions to on-demand opinion and biased information created an even more slanted ecosystem.
Basically anyone born in the mid-90s onwards has never known a society in which our media outlets were even trying to be even-handed.
Compare that to today, where the court narrative must be pushed at all costs. Yes the DIE people couch it in individualized language of lived experience, but the stultifying demands to embrace a prepackaged narrative and exclude unhelpful stories at all costs allows for none of the irony or cynicism of the postmodern.Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease, @ic1000
> [Today,] the court narrative must be pushed at all costs. Yes the DIE people couch it in individualized language of lived experience, but the stultifying demands to embrace a prepackaged narrative and exclude unhelpful stories at all costs allows for none of the irony or cynicism of the postmodern.
“George’s” comment in the next thread (#1 at this writing) is a link to a half-hour interview of CUNY Professor Christian Parenti. As an old-school Marxist, Parenti loathes Wokism and the DEI movement. The title is a spoiler alert as to why: “‘Diversity’ Is a Ruling-Class Ideology”. I find many of Parenti’s perspectives to be less than satisfactory (but then, as a Not-A-Commie, I would, wouldn’t I).
Parenti’s arguments are internally consistent and coherent. And most opponents can find some common ground with his moral vision, namely that “people shouldn’t be economically exploited.”
It puts Leonard Downie’s defense of his Current Thing in a yet worse light.
Amanda Ripley: I stopped reading the news. Is the problem me — or the product?Now, the mainstream news media is coping with economic and digital disruption, along with increasing competition from misinformation on cable television and the internet. Meanwhile, American society itself has been in upheaval over discrimination against and abuse of women; persistent racism and white nationalism; police brutality and killings; the treatment of LGBTQ+ people; income inequality and social problems; immigration and the treatment of immigrants; the causes and effects of climate change; voting rights and election inequality; and even the very survival of our democracy. Reporting reliably on all of this has critically challenged newsrooms, calling into question their diversity, values and credibility.To better understand the changes happening now, I and former CBS News president Andrew Heyward, a colleague at Arizona State University’s Walter Cronkite School of Journalism, investigated the values and practices in mainstream newsrooms today, with a grant from the Stanton Foundation. What we found has convinced us that truth-seeking news media must move beyond whatever “objectivity” once meant to produce more trustworthy news. We interviewed more than 75 news leaders, journalists and other experts in mainstream print, broadcast and digital news media, many of whom also advocate such a change. This appears to be the beginning of another generational shift in American journalism.Among the news leaders who told Heyward and me that they had rejected objectivity as a coverage standard was Kathleen Carroll, former executive editor of the Associated Press. “It’s objective by whose standard?” she asked. “That standard seems to be White, educated, fairly wealthy. … And when people don’t feel like they find themselves in news coverage, it’s because they don’t fit that definition.”More and more journalists of color and younger White reporters, including LGBTQ+ people, in increasingly diverse newsrooms believe that the concept of objectivity has prevented truly accurate reporting informed by their own backgrounds, experiences and points of view.“There is some confusion about the value of good reporting versus point of view,” said current Post executive editor Sally Buzbee, who noted that many journalists want to make a difference on such issues as climate change, immigration and education. “We stress the value of reporting,” she said, “what you are able to dig up — so you (the reader) can make up your own mind.”“The consensus among younger journalists is that we got it all wrong,” Emilio Garcia-Ruiz, editor in chief of the San Francisco Chronicle, told us. “Objectivity has got to go.” Letters to the Editor: Why we’re not reading the news
Garcia-Ruiz is among a vanguard of print, broadcast and digital news leaders who have increased their newsrooms’ diversity and created new avenues of communication among their reporters and editors to discuss issues and coverage. Some have assembled affinity groups or caucuses of staff members — for women, Blacks, Latinos, Asian Americans and LGBTQ+ people — and involved them in newsroom decisions.At USA Today, editor in chief Nicole Carroll told us she seeks a diversity of staff participants, experiences and views in daily brainstorming sessions about news coverage. In these discussions, Carroll said, she and her editors “have found more value in diverse people’s lived experiences.” She has no prohibitions against staff members working on stories involving their identities or life experiences unless they demonstrate a strong bias.
At the Los Angeles Times, reporters and editors have many personal identities, explained editor Kevin Merida. “We find ways for our journalists to share more of that,” including first-person essays on the front page. He cited a Latina reporter’s story about the low vaccination rate in her community and a gay police reporter’s story about his own marriage and a potential U.S. Supreme Court threat to the legality of same-sex marriages.Some local television stations owned by broadcast networks are trying to increase their coverage of real life in their communities. ABC-owned stations have, for example, sent journalists from recently created “race and culture content” teams into local neighborhoods. “We have to be able to use the voices of people whose neighborhoods we don’t normally go into and tell these stories from their vantage point,” Maxine Crooks, a vice president of ABC-owned stations, told us.Claudia Milne, senior vice president of standards and practices for CBS News, pointed out that decisions about which news to cover can reflect an organization’s values, whether or not these are stated publicly, as The Post has done with its slogan, “Democracy Dies in Darkness.” Sometimes, the language used in news stories also can reflect such values.“I don’t want to throw labels like ‘racist’ or ‘lying’ around willy-nilly; the evidence should be high,” Joseph Kahn, executive editor of the New York Times, told us. “But I think it’s true that, when the evidence is there, we should not default to some mealy-mouthed, so-called neutral language that some people see this as a falsehood, while others do not. When the evidence is there, we should be clear and direct with our audience that we don’t think there are multiple sides to this question, this is a falsehood. And the person repeating this falsehood over and over is guilty of lying.”Newer, nonprofit news organizations often have launched with stated missions. The national digital news site the 19th, for example, aims to “elevate voices of women, people of color, and the LGBTQ+ community.”
Elizabeth Green, co-founder and chief executive of Chalkbeat, whose news websites across the country cover education, said it adopted antiracism as a core value. “We talk about it a lot,” she told us. “Is this what an antiracist news organization would do?”Should journalists go outside their organizations to express their own opinions on social media or take part in advocacy or protests? In these rapidly changing times, it has become a difficult question to answer.
“You can’t be an activist and be a Times journalist at the same time,” Kahn said flatly. “All of our newsroom journalists should act as if they are representing the institution that they’re working for when they’re making public comments about major issues in the news.” Perry Bacon Jr.: America should spend billions to revive local news. Noah Oppenheim, the president of NBC News, pointed out that there are many ways to influence people and leaders, and journalism is one of them. “Our position is that, if you choose journalism as your route, you are giving up some other options that are available to the general public,” he said.At the Los Angeles Times, Merida is open to the possibility that reporters might cover issues on which they actively engage. “We’re trying to find that line,” he said. “We’re trying to create an environment in which we don’t police our journalists too much. Our young people want to be participants in the world.”Both Heyward and I continue to believe that allowing journalists to express opinions on controversial social and political issues erodes the perception of their news organizations’ fairness and open-mindedness. As representatives of news outlets, they give up some personal rights to free expression. But some mission-driven operations might well choose to allow social media and political activity with their core values. It’s best for each newsroom to have a clear and consistent policy.We urge news organizations to, first, strive not just for accuracy brd on verifiable facts but also for truth — what Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward have called “the best obtainable version of the truth.” This means original journalism that includes investigating and reporting on all aspects of American life.Newsroom staff diversity should reflect the communities being covered — not just gender and ethnic diversity but also diversity of economic, educational, geographic and social backgrounds. Inclusive newsrooms should encourage their journalists to speak up and be heard by their colleagues and leaders in making decisions about coverage.News media should also be as transparent as possible about their newsgathering decisions and processes. When possible, they should hire or designate an editor to field and act on reader complaints and questions.Responsible news organizations need to develop core values by having candid, inclusive and open conversations. Making these values public could well forge a stronger connection between journalists and the public.One essential value for all Americans is the survival of democratic institutions, which are under attack on multiple fronts. Trustworthy journalism by a new generation of journalists and newsroom leaders can ensure that the news media continues to do its part to protect democracy.Replies: @Jack D, @Rusty Tailgate, @Gabe Ruth, @Anon, @Muggles, @anonymous, @Jonathan Mason, @Poirot
• Too Long; Didn’t Read: Poirot
When I was a college journalism major in the late seventies most of my fellow majors were liberals who wanted to be the next Woodward & Bernstein. Instead of Carl Bernstein I wanted to be Theodore Bernstein, a copy editor for the New York Times who wrote The Careful Writer. I worked as a copy editor on my college newspaper. I decided I didn’t want to spend my whole life around liberals so switched fields.
With a few exceptions like H.L. Mencken or Tom Wolfe most journalists have been on the left. The first book on the subject was The News Twisters by Edith Efron, a real classic that I read in the late seventies.
The best way to find some of the books and magazine articles related to this is get an old 1993 copy of the National Review Politically Incorrect Reference Guide. Leftists especially focused on capturing control of education and the media because of their usefulness in brainwashing the impressionable younger generation. There was a similar former sixties radical movement into government in the 90's with one former sixties radical couple even becoming president and first lady.Replies: @Feryl, @Unladen Swallow
There was pretty large blanding of pop culture in the 90’s (still with us to the present day) and a noticeable decline in violence and sexual perversion that began around 1995 (coinciding with Boomers aging out of their prime deviance years and also late Gen X/early Millennials being much more socially cautious then Boomers and early Gen X. That’s why people tend to think of the 90’s as a pretty staid decade. But yes, well-educated verbal elite Boomers were substantially more Left-wing on many issues compared to older generations (wealthy Boomers in non-verbal industries tended to be more conservative).
Regarding Len Downie–he is a literal cuck. His wife left him for a fellow Post employee-a negro. As I remember the Downies went to a big work -related party together, and she literally left with the negro that night, leaving Cuck Len looking the fool. Look it up.
Most of the Op-Ed seems to be arguing in favor of the former:As for the rest of the article, he doesn't really articulate why objectivity, which, by definition "negates many of their own identities, life experiences and cultural contexts" is in conflict with "pursuing truth in their work." It just does! My truth, lived experiences, identity, etc., etc.
I think they used to call this post-modernism, the idea that there is no such thing as objective reality. Fuddy-duddy Enlightenment concepts like reason, the scientific method, cause and effect are just white male relics. It's ironic that Washington Post journalists, among the most influential people in society, probably see themselves "speaking truth to power," when in fact they want to do the opposite, using their power to impose "truth." These twentysomething crusaders' hubris -- their arrogance, lack of humility, complete uninterest in self-reflection -- is really dangerous.Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Feryl, @CalCooledge, @John Milton’s Ghost, @AndrewR, @Herp McDerp
Good comment but blaming it all on “twentysomethings” misses the mark. The editors and executives of the ministry of propaganda are all older. Big Boss Baldy Bezos is 60. To what extent are the boomers being held hostage vs willingly assisting the youngins? The rot in this country is deep but not enough to make it impossible to find young people not infected by wokeism. These hiring decisions are fully voluntary.
The public good — rather than the public’s interest — should be a prevailing factor.
By: Doris Truong
https://www.poynter.org/ethics-trust/2021/its-time-for-journalism-to-break-the-cycle-of-crime-reporting“The public good —- rather than the public’s interest —- should be a prevailing factor.”One of the most Orwellian things I’ve ever seen written outside actual fiction. It wasn’t so long ago, of course, that these people wouldn't (At least rhetorically) consider the two to be anything but synonymous.But I worked it out. ‘The public good’, real or presumed political interests of non-whites. ‘The public's interest’ the boring and illegitimate political interests of ‘Legacy Americans’. And as we all know, non-whites only have legitimate collective interests and whites have no legitimate collective interests, only collective responsibility and shame. Because it's 1968 and American is 90% white only just ended segregation. Right?Replies: @Anonymous
The ‘yellow press’ of the early 20th century cast a long shadow. For many years afterwards American journalists made a special effort to be objective and accurate, because they were embarrassed by their previous reputation.
But of course nobody cares about this anymore and ‘American journalist’ is once again becoming a byword for ‘dishonest and sensationalist’.
Let's take the recent death of Jeff Beck, guitarist (mostly). Someone from a musical background would focus exclusively on that. However, Beck was a world class gearhead and had a fantastic collection of hot rods. A reporter with automotive interests would probably include that tidbit in the report as well.
In my 20+ years working in the media the most biased reporters I knew were the ones that insisted they were Totally Objective.Replies: @AndrewR
I don’t think anyone ever claimed that perfect objectivity is always possible. But it seems very dangerous to abandon it as something to at least strive for.
“I noticed that everybody trying to tell us that was some pale penis person who lived 100 years ago.”
Are they sure about that? Perhaps the “pale penis person” identified as a woman. Seems to me that men of that era sure seemed to wear a lot of skirts.
But I could be wrong.
It's the Marxist model.
Whites are the oppressive bourgeois.Replies: @Vito Klein, @Prof. Woland
The Nim Chimpsky angle on this is that the readers or viewers are not really the actual customer, it is the people paying for the advertisements. But in the age of the internet, the real customer is Google, Fakebook, and all the rest of the tech monopolies. The legacy press is corralled and serves only one master. Big tech has such a ball hold that their only job is maintaining their monopoly and counting their money. Somewhere I heard that there is a blockchain version of social media on the horizon that will bypass everything but then what will we do with all the Facebook scolds?
The thing is, many of those 60’s artists weren’t actually that liberal. It’s a notoriously strange fact that many of them had families with deep roots in the military/intelligence community (something never seen in any America musical movement before or since the 60’s and early 70’s). Frank Zappa hated hippies. Neil Young infamously had a Reaganite phase.
But in the late 80’s/90’s, many music artists did buy into paranoia about a Religious Right take-over as well as Environmentalist alarmism, so explicitly Left-wing lyrics became more prevalent. Many “alternative” artists in the 90’s explicitly became pro-abortion and feminist activists. Not that it was always explicitly stated in lyrics, but they did promote this stuff in interviews and in encouraging activists to attend concerts and festivals and pass out propaganda.
http://www.stationgossip.com/2023/02/report-fbi-planning-to-build-new.htmlReplies: @Anonymous, @That Would Be Telling
There’s a conspiracy theory that the endgame of all this anti-police activism is nationwide police federalization.
I’m shocked! Leeds is back in the top tier?
I always get Leeds and Leicester mixed up. Now they’re both in the Premier. Burnley (who?) Is on track to join them next year, as is Sheffield United. Sheffield Wednesday can take United’s place in “the Championship” (the second tier), as they lead League One (the third– truth in advertising?)
Wednesday– owned by a Thai tuna tycoon–, besides having the best club name in England, is the obvious choice of Steve Sailer and Bill Cosby:
Yes, but that said, Mr. Anon, Ben Tillman’s link shows that this folk song writer at a young age was a towering intellectual compared to, well, about anyone today.
No, I don’t know what got into these people to change them from hippie-dippies to authoritarians. I think because they were such a big age cohort, together they figured that they are always right, at each state of life.
I heard the polished Judy Collins version long before ever hearing Joni Mitchell sing her more raw version. Judy’s version is great. However, Joni wrote it, and I like her singing, so I give her the credit.
Stevie Wonder is a great popular musician and song-writer. As a singer.............eh.......I've heard better.
Carol King was a better song writer than a singer. That said, although she is not a polished singer, I still like her singing. It is at least soulful.
Honestly, I hadn't known that Joni Mitchell wrote Both Sides Now. It's a good song. But I never liked her singing. I prefer Judy Collins.
That bothersome “bothsidesism”
http://www.stationgossip.com/2023/02/report-fbi-planning-to-build-new.htmlReplies: @Anonymous, @That Would Be Telling
Unfortunately this is an example on the Right of what we’re talking about or disinformation in terms of Squirrel! Drill down and that’s not far at all, this claim is being made solely on the sizes of the land parcels under consideration by the GSA. It’s not even close to axiomatic that translates into how much land will be used for the new FBI HQ, let alone the size and capacity of the building(s) etc.
Side note: we’ll know the Republicans are serious when they zero the budget of the FBI.
The best way to find some of the books and magazine articles related to this is get an old 1993 copy of the National Review Politically Incorrect Reference Guide. Leftists especially focused on capturing control of education and the media because of their usefulness in brainwashing the impressionable younger generation. There was a similar former sixties radical movement into government in the 90's with one former sixties radical couple even becoming president and first lady.Replies: @Feryl, @Unladen Swallow
Honestly, I’m surprised that anyone ( even liberals in the media ) would argue that the mainstream media ( MSM ) is any way objective anymore, that ship sailed quite a while ago. I goes back to at least the late 80’s-early 90’s time frame, at least with some broadcast networks and news magazines who clearly de facto decided to abandon objectivity after the Democrats lost their third straight presidential election in 1988.
I remember taking a class on politics and the media circa the mid 90’s and the prof showed a bunch of clips of the big three broadcast networks announcing the would never let objectivity in news coverage to allow an election like 1988 happen again. Lee Atwater was their bogeyman, how dare he point out Dukakis allowed weekend furloughs for a first degree murderer ( even though he did ), facts cost our team the election! That is unacceptable!!!
Agree. Older editors presumably used to curtail the bad behavior of the younger staff, due to their commitment to journalistic standards or at least their fiduciary duty to ownership. Now they are only encouraging the worst behavior, as are the owners, so it will never end.
But in the late 80's/90's, many music artists did buy into paranoia about a Religious Right take-over as well as Environmentalist alarmism, so explicitly Left-wing lyrics became more prevalent. Many "alternative" artists in the 90's explicitly became pro-abortion and feminist activists. Not that it was always explicitly stated in lyrics, but they did promote this stuff in interviews and in encouraging activists to attend concerts and festivals and pass out propaganda.Replies: @Mr. Anon
Taylor Swift came out for a number of establishment liberal causes (anti-Trump, pro-abortion, etc.) and said that she “didn’t care” what the consequences were. The consequences are non-existent. Her pretense of being daring and brave is complete BS. She is a participant, tool, and property of the pop-music business. She risks exactly nothing by being publicly pro-abortion. The really brave thing for her to do would be to publicly oppose abortion.
A lot of song-writers tried their hand at being singers with decidedly mixed success.
Stevie Wonder is a great popular musician and song-writer. As a singer………….eh…….I’ve heard better.
Carol King was a better song writer than a singer. That said, although she is not a polished singer, I still like her singing. It is at least soulful.
Honestly, I hadn’t known that Joni Mitchell wrote Both Sides Now. It’s a good song. But I never liked her singing. I prefer Judy Collins.
Sad!
Media objectivity. LOL.
Palestinians knew it was bogus forever. But Conservative Americans just let it pass, and now they are the targets of the media kill shots.
One golden rule is, when you see something bogus or wrong, call it out even if it doesn’t affect your side in the now because, if allowed to fester and grow, it may eventually come to harm your side as well, especially when the wrong is being done orchestrated by a group with deep-seated historical resentment toward your kind.
I prefer Ann Margret’s rendition over either of the others you mentioned.
I always get Leeds and Leicester mixed up. Now they're both in the Premier. Burnley (who?) Is on track to join them next year, as is Sheffield United. Sheffield Wednesday can take United's place in "the Championship" (the second tier), as they lead League One (the third-- truth in advertising?)
Wednesday-- owned by a Thai tuna tycoon--, besides having the best club name in England, is the obvious choice of Steve Sailer and Bill Cosby:
https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BNDZjY2ZlNTIt[email protected]._V1_.jpgReplies: @Jonathan Mason
Well, it was Forest 1 Leeds 0. Somewhat predictably the fan comments were that Leeds’ American manager Jesse Marsch should have been fired long ago, but he is protected by US (49ers) ownership.
LOL-I’ve read your stuff here now-no you’re the bottom-given your LGBQTPedo pimping no doubt in more ways than one?
Of course you are a WaPo Clown-a propaganda mouthpiece for the “Elite” SatanistPedos — a pimp for the CIA pushing lies in a “Newspaper” so bad and dishonest it makes Pravda look like a bastion of honesty.
Just one example–your “Religion” reporter of many years – publishing negatives for years as to and against Christianity – then retires finally and writes a book – in which she finally reveals that she is a Witch who “casts spells” – one of which she thinks killed someone.
This is the level of “honesty” of the WaPo- placing a Satanist/Witch in as their “Religion Reporter” and never revealing it of course as said witch insults Christians for numerous years. Scum is a mild description of WaPo “Reporters”.
The good news is the majority are waking up and more and more have no trust in you paid propagandist/liars. Truly for the damage you all have done his comment was too kind.
Unlike GenX, Millennials and younger cohorts love hoaxes. Because they derive all their life meaning from fake things in cyberspace, they are very enthusiastic when they can partake of fake things in meatspace; viz: the covid hoax and facediapering. 90% of harassment re diapering came from young people and almost NONE came from GenX.
Before the Millennials, GenX was the most hoaxed generation and we resented the endless litany of acid rain, The Big One, AIDS, the ozone hole and dozens of other hoaxes purveyed thru the 1980s and 90s because we derived meaning from real things in the real world, whereas Millennialtards and GenZ spend 99.9% of their lives staring at a fake world on a tiny screen, so they don't resent the endless fakery of endless hoaxes like globalclimatecrisischange, covid, and chix with dix because their entire existence is a hoax.Replies: @AndrewR
You’re an idiot
In fairness, both Joni Mitchell and Neil Young have, or are closely related to someone who has, serious health problems. They can be forgiven a little medical paranoia, even if we disagree. Joni is otherwise a good egg. I’ve met her. She’s good to nobodies like us. She came from a military family.
Paul Lynde was the only man in the room who didn’t want to screw her.
This is an awful lot of words to say "What is objectivity (truth) anyway?" When you are 18 years old and stoned or drunk, it's good to philosophize with your drinking buddies that reality is not 100% rock hard like the concrete sidewalk that you just tripped and fell onto. But the next morning when you wake up and you're all bruised up, those bruises tend it indicate that it mostly is.
Objective reality DOES exist. A perfect journalist portrayal of an event will never be achieved, just like a painting of a thing will never be the thing itself. But it's the job of the journalist to get as close as humanly possible to it and not to intentionally turn away from it, to try to put aside their biases and not embrace them and flaunt them. At least if the journalist wants to have any credibility as a journalist and not as a polemicist.Replies: @Corvinus, @Post-Postmodernist
And also the Blockquote tags. Or at least italics, or some way of setting
text apart from one’s own words. Heck, it would seem that Mr. Corvinus can’t even be bothered to simply place plain-old quotation-marks (“) around the text that he copies and pastes. (Not the first time, nor the second…)
Most of the Op-Ed seems to be arguing in favor of the former:As for the rest of the article, he doesn't really articulate why objectivity, which, by definition "negates many of their own identities, life experiences and cultural contexts" is in conflict with "pursuing truth in their work." It just does! My truth, lived experiences, identity, etc., etc.
I think they used to call this post-modernism, the idea that there is no such thing as objective reality. Fuddy-duddy Enlightenment concepts like reason, the scientific method, cause and effect are just white male relics. It's ironic that Washington Post journalists, among the most influential people in society, probably see themselves "speaking truth to power," when in fact they want to do the opposite, using their power to impose "truth." These twentysomething crusaders' hubris -- their arrogance, lack of humility, complete uninterest in self-reflection -- is really dangerous.Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Feryl, @CalCooledge, @John Milton’s Ghost, @AndrewR, @Herp McDerp
“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.”
― Philip K. Dick
Apparently Woke journalists believe that if politically incorrect things like crime statistics or government malfeasance aren’t reported, they will go away.
Some surprising self-reflection from the Columbia Journalism Review
https://nypost.com/2023/02/04/the-medias-road-to-ruin-its-own-credibility-in-war-on-trump/
Well, what do you know? Jesse was fired today, so I guess fan-power and the Internet counts for something.
Downie got bounced from the WaPo about 15 years ago, and has been wearing a hair shirt ever since.
Thanks, but I mixed up the name. I meant to say Anne Murray.
https://nypost.com/2023/02/04/the-medias-road-to-ruin-its-own-credibility-in-war-on-trump/Replies: @That Would Be Telling
How surprising if it’s seven years after the start of the Russia election and Trump-Russia collusion hoaxes, when Trump is probably safely contained as well as self-destructing? Only wonks are going to pay attention to this after it did immeasurable damage to the Republic, very possibly a significant part in ending the Republic unless you think the Left is going to allow another Republican President or Senate.
Agree, these admissions are too late and we can’t go back. But the media will NEVER admit how it has lied about the vax.
The Right has lied infinitely more about “the vax,” to the extent either understands anything about it and even knows it’s lying, and I don’t think they’ll ever admit to it. Perhaps we have a problem with human nature?
Complain quite rightly about the media but you’ve been buying a lot of what they’ve been selling
It’s actually a commercial thing. Have been articles on how NYT admitted it internally. They are sort of trying to serve the left more openly. It has actually worked and they are doing better than other papers. Of course, externally they don’t admit it. The aegis of the Grey Lady still has value. But it’s pretty clear how Fox has worked commercially. And even MSNBC as opposed to CNN. So they are doing that. NPR realized this a while ago, also.
They are serving their market. Almost everyone wants ammunition to support their views more than they want info that might threaten changing them. It’s human nature. And this would not look so strange to a media person from 120 years ago, when muckraking was more open.