Bigthink - Idea Comments Feed

Comment on: Re: Can journalists be objective?

Bigthink — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 00:50:33 +0100

Nyarlathotep--First, it's absurd for anyone to think that an individual can be free of bias or personal belief structure. That's simple fantasy. The question would be whether or not a process/structure can be created that helps to minimize the impact of said individual bias or belief structure.

And to call simply presenting "two sides" of a story "journalism" is equally absurd. If a Democrat says that the recent FISA bill says one thing and Republicans say it says another, there's no way for me, as an individual, to determine who's lying and who's not. I need one of two things to happen. Either the journalist needs to fact-check what the two sides say or I need an easy way to access the original information myself. Often, journalism fails on both these counts and I'm left to wonder.

Comment on: Re: Can journalists be objective?

Bigthink — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 08:52:46 +0100

Slag, his argument seems clear to me. He says that yes, obviously journalism should be objective, that it should be free of subjective opinions and judgments on the part of the journalist. I don't know what you mean when you ask if being objective is another way of being critical. Being objective is the only way journalists can present news so that people can critically formulate their OWN opinions based on their own values, as opposed to those of the journalist. Why would you want to consume all your information filtered directly and overtly through the prism someone else's personal belief structure?

The desire you have for direct source citation in news seems to me to be a desire for objectivity- -reporting that is based on hard facts unaffected by opinion. When you say that you dislike being presented two sides and being supposed to conclude that the truth is somewhere in between, I am confused. Many news stories, those dealing with public opinion or polling, for instance, are in fact detailing clashes between two sides or two predominant public views (ie. abortion/ pro-choice). In what way is presenting both sides innappropriate or not giving you the opportunity to learn something? Is it really so difficult to imagine that you might have to formulate your own opinion without it being dictated to you by your media? You might find that 'the "truth" falls somewhere in the middle' after all.

Comment on: Re: Can journalists be objective?

Bigthink — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 00:37:57 +0100

This argument seemed a little convoluted to me. Are we supposed to try to be non-judgmental or judgmental in our quest for objectivity? Or is being objective another way of being critical?

I would agree that some type of conversation is needed in order to achieve a level of objectivity, but I don't know that today's journalists are participating in that conversation in the same way academics are (at least not as critically). Today's journalists often admit, even among themselves, that there is a tendency for them to think as a whole. For the first or loudest voice on a subject to sway the group. I've even seen numerous defenses (some verbal, some written) by journalists of the "neutral" role that they think they play in presenting "both sides" of an argument without investigation or judgment or critical thought.

And right now, it seems that average Americans have a different understanding of the role of journalists than most journalists seem to have. I suspect that this difference is what accounts for the general lack of agreement on the role of "objectivity" as well. As a news consumer, I would like to get a clearer sense of the standards that journalism is supposed to meet. And I would like to see more context and more direct source citation in most basic news story. In short, for every story I read, I want to feel satisfied that I'm actually learning something--not just being presented with two different perspectives and supposed to conclude that the "truth" is somewhere in the middle.