Apparently... Media Is NOT Supposed To Be Objective


Carborendum
 Share

Recommended Posts

Washington Post Commentator says objectivity has got to go.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/01/30/newsrooms-news-reporting-objectivity-diversity/

At least there's no more trying to hide it.  I don't know if that's good or bad.

If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes journalism.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, I'm totally fine with news sources that are open and transparent about their bias.  Problem comes when people don't think they have bias, or pretend they don't.

Anyone else ever listen to AM Radio guy Hugh Hewitt?  Lawyer, professor, inside beltway government experience, with a talk radio show on the side.  He used to do a bit on his show where he'd interview a left-leaning journalist/columnist/broadcaster/etc.  It was fascinating to hear their opinions on bias in media.  The average opinion from these folks are "there's no bias in media - there are just occasional bad actors out there producing propaganda (like Fox)".  Hugh would ask them if they thought they were lefties or liberals - most would refuse to answer, claiming to be unbiased and the answer didn't matter.  Hugh would ask questions like "do you own a gun?" and "are you in favor of expanding abortion rights?"  You could hear people squirm.   Eventually, word got out at what an interview with Hugh would be like, and people stopped appearing on his show.  So he had to dump that bit.

His analogies have stuck with me over the years:

"You're like a coal miner with no canary - you don't know that you're sick."

"When I play golf, I take wind into account, and aim into the wind.  I'm not opposed to you being biased, I just want you to admit which way you make the wind blow.  So people looking for truth know how to interpret what you are saying."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Washington Post Commentator says objectivity has got to go.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/01/30/newsrooms-news-reporting-objectivity-diversity/

At least there's no more trying to hide it.  I don't know if that's good or bad.

If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes journalism.

Lying liars lie the lies of lying liars. (Apologies to MST3K.)

The argument in a nutshell is, "We don't like objectivity because we prefer pure, diamond truth." And of course, they decide what's true. That's the beauty of it.

Our recent ancestors figured out eight or ten generations ago that human beings aren't really very good at uncovering fundamental truths. The best we could do is listen to various viewpoints and try to figure out which viewpoint gave the best result that, we assume, gets us closer to that elusive and often invisible underlying truth. That's why objectivity is so important: How can you digest various viewpoints and make rational decisions if you refuse objectivity and insist on being subjective?

But this clever new breed of journalist have finally figured out what no one else in the past hundred thousand years has managed to achieve: They have all the right opinions, so their view very literally is The Truth.

What a glorious day to be alive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those who missed it, I write for a family of local-level newspapers. 

The feedback I've gotten from my readers is that while they may not always disagree with my op/eds or movie reviews, they trust that I'm telling them the truth and that my statements are me calling things as I see them. 

What's happening in the OP is that people are getting upset they can't dictate what reality is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Ironhold said:

For those who missed it, I write for a family of local-level newspapers. 

The feedback I've gotten from my readers is that while they may not always disagree with my op/eds or movie reviews, they trust that I'm telling them the truth and that my statements are me calling things as I see them. 

What's happening in the OP is that people are getting upset they can't dictate what reality is. 

I've come to the conclusion that this (op ed) is a good thing.

I made a decision a long time ago to get all my news through news aggregation services.  I frequent four regular sites and some random ones here or there.  I'm guessing I read from maybe 10 to 20 different news sources every day.

I did this because I recognized that everyone has biases.  And no on can fully rid themselves of their biases (Tim Russert seemed to actually accomplish this Herculean feat, but he's no longer with us).  So, the only way to get a complete picture is to read news from all across the spectrum.  Some truth exists where the biases point to intersecting ideas. It is those intersecting ideas that will actually be closer to the truth than anything that an individual source says.

But it takes a person asking the important question.  Can we ask the right questions?  Can we recognize when we've got a full and complete answer?  In my experience, most people simply listen to either confirm their own biases, or they simply parrot.  I believe that bias confirmation may not be as bad as people think -- not preferable, but not the worst.  But when people simply parrot?  That's a bad sign.  This means that people aren't even thinking anymore.  The worst is when I notice our talking heads simply parroting talking points rather than providing real, logical, deep thought.

So, it's a two-part system.  Give broad latitude for freedom of the press (this includes virtually every online forum or platform) and have a population that will ask a lot of the right questions.  I believe we are doing fairly well with the former (still needs a lot of improvement).  I'm worried about the latter.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that everyone (that is a free citizen, granted liberty) has a right to a bias or opinion.  I believe this is given the title of “free speech”.  I believe that our USA constitution grants this to all citizens as well as to media.   What I do not agree with that the government – in any way (especially declaring anything as disinformation) prohibits free speech.  I believe the government has the right to declare what is official government information and what is not – but should not declare anything beyond that – as all other have that right as well – to declare what is not their point of view or belief.

I am also very skeptical of someone that either does not know their bias or willing to declare their bias.

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, pretty much agreed.  The govt (translated as the people working for the government) gets to have an opinion, even a govt funded and advertised opinion.  Problem comes when the govt works to silence other's opinions (like we learned all about in the #twitterfiles collaboration between FBI and Twitter).

And yep, you show me someone who doesn't know or admit to bias, I'll show you someone whos opinion is simply less valid and useful than other opinions.  It's easy to find people who react to a challenge to their opinion in the same way a mathemetician reacts to an argument against 2+2=4.  People get entrenched, defensive, and eventually lash out against what they consider arguments against truth.  

Only thing I'd change about @Traveler's post, is I'd say our constitution protects rights granted to us by God - it doesn't grant rights itself.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Yeah, pretty much agreed.  The govt (translated as the people working for the government) gets to have an opinion, even a govt funded and advertised opinion.  Problem comes when the govt works to silence other's opinions (like we learned all about in the #twitterfiles collaboration between FBI and Twitter).

And yep, you show me someone who doesn't know or admit to bias, I'll show you someone whos opinion is simply less valid and useful than other opinions.  It's easy to find people who react to a challenge to their opinion in the same way a mathemetician reacts to an argument against 2+2=4.  People get entrenched, defensive, and eventually lash out against what they consider arguments against truth.  

Only thing I'd change about @Traveler's post, is I'd say our constitution protects rights granted to us by God - it doesn't grant rights itself.

 

As a mathematician the formula 2+2=4 has certain limited application.  Technically a more broad formula that includes set theory would be 4>=2+2>=2

But you are correct in you thinking – most scientists believe that there is a unique and individual answer to problem solving.  There seem to be wide ranges of exceptions in answers to problem solving with political scientists and the science of psychology - which in my opinion are more pseudo-science than science.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share