Because of course...

[Perd Hapley]

https://quillette.com/2020/10/01/the-misguided-campaign-against-journalistic-objectivity/

Prof. Callison seeks a decisive shift—indeed, a revolution—away from journalistic objectivity, and an explicit embrace of subjectivity. She told Germain that “objectivity [has been] interpreted in most newsrooms as… a way of not acknowledging your social location as a journalist, that there has been a way of reporting on certain topics and certain communities in the past that may have caused harm.” Instead of attempting to rise to this “harmful” objective ideal, journalists should exhibit clarity about “whose social order you’re maintaining.”

 

We didn't need more stupid in 2020. This year's quota has been surpassed.

[K Frame]

So, she prescribes to the socialist/communist theory of journalism.

Anyone really surprised?

[230RN]

Seems like what she sees as "ought to be" has already happened.

"Journalistic objectvity" is now a joke, an oxymoron, a delusion foisted on us by those very journalists.

Terry, 230RN

Edited to strike the "now" for clarity.

[MikeB]

I think journalistic objectivity was always a myth. In my own lifetime I recognized a bias in what were supposed to be straight news broadcast or print stories against republicans and for democrats or often more specifically against the modern concepts of conservative vs liberal going back to Reagan. I was a child then and still saw it.

Historically I’m well aware the first newspapers or equivalent media sources going back to the founding of this country were often blatantly partisan, and commonly owned or under the direct influence of the politicians/leaders of the time.

Then there was the whole period of yellow journalism? Did it really start in the 1890’s or was it really there all along? It certainly has never ended.

I’m not as familiar with journalism in other countries, but I am aware this is not a purely American issue either.

Everyone seems to forget or at least I don’t see it mentioned enough, and maybe it is just a little more blatant. Or perhaps the internet/social media magnify it. The things the media claims and say about Trump are more or less the same things they claimed and said about Reagan, both Bush’s and even during the election cycles McCain and Romney.

None of the name calling and harsh partisanship is new either. Even at our founding the most viscous mostly false allegations were published and said about each other between politicians of the time. Heck we had duels over some of the things people said about each other.

[dogmush]

^^

This.  I think a lot of people like to whinge about how "politics is so divisive and rude these days" and "the press is so biased these days"  When the reality is the press is as biased as it always was, it's just easier to see because they aren't the sole arbiter of information.

As far as politics, for better or worse, the legislative branch is no longer shooting each other in duels, so it's not as acrimonious as it has been in the past.

[Fly320s]

I think some of the idea that journalism should be objective comes from the intial radio and TV days.  Those broadcasts used, and still use, the public airwaves so they are required and expected to maintain certain standards such as not cussing.  Maybe there was a strong push to keep those broadcasts politically neutral so the big hand of government wouldn't give the broadcaster a smack down.

[Pb]

^^

This.  I think a lot of people like to whinge about how "politics is so divisive and rude these days" and "the press is so biased these days"  When the reality is the press is as biased as it always was, it's just easier to see because they aren't the sole arbiter of information.

As far as politics, for better or worse, the legislative branch is no longer shooting each other in duels, so it's not as acrimonious as it has been in the past.

Good point.

[RoadKingLarry]

^^

This.  I think a lot of people like to whinge about how "politics is so divisive and rude these days" and "the press is so biased these days"  When the reality is the press is as biased as it always was, it's just easier to see because they aren't the sole arbiter of information.

As far as politics, for better or worse, the legislative branch is no longer shooting each other in duels, so it's not as acrimonious as it has been in the past.

That's part of the problem with today's society, no respect for tradition.
 

[MikeB]

I think some of the idea that journalism should be objective comes from the intial radio and TV days.  Those broadcasts used, and still use, the public airwaves so they are required and expected to maintain certain standards such as not cussing.  Maybe there was a strong push to keep those broadcasts politically neutral so the big hand of government wouldn't give the broadcaster a smack down.

I would say that this. And add the so called fairness doctrine which was in reality anything but fair despite the illusion propagated by the talking heads. Would anyone really claim Russert, Rather, elder Wallace, etc. were really telling in straight down the middle? I always felt there was another side they weren’t telling me. Just logically there should be more to the story ...

As much as I can take or leave people like Limbaugh, we didn’t really hear the other side of the coin until the fairness doctrine was eliminated. Until talk radio and especially the internet came along without the fairness doctrine there wasn’t that dissenting opinion being always being heard. I hate social media, but at the same time now the MSM can’t get away with the one sided stories they did for decades.

And I say this as someone who doesn’t always disagree with the “liberals”. I’m mostly libertarian. I don’t think Reagan was as great as he was portrayed. I hated both Bush’s. McCain and Romney. Well maybe hate is too strong, not a fan let’s say. I voted for Perot twice ... I had disagreements with his platform too, but it wasn’t the regular R vs D or what the media told me to do.

[Perd Hapley]

Even at our founding the most viscous mostly false allegations were published and said about each other between politicians of the time.

As viscous as the pine tar with which we coated the loyalists.

[HankB]

I think journalistic objectivity was always a myth. In my own lifetime I recognized a bias in what were supposed to be straight news broadcast or print stories against republicans and for democrats or often more specifically against the modern concepts of conservative vs liberal going back to Reagan. I was a child then and still saw it . . .

Case in point: 1980 Republican National Convention. Keynote address was by Guy Vander Jagt. The networks were covering the convention and broadcast without interruption a host of minor speakers, but as soon as the KEYNOTE ADDRESS began, they cut away from live coverage and killed time by having the convention coverage anchors interview one another. I remember this as what was - at the time - one of the most blatant examples of journalistic malfeasance and naked anti-Republican bias I had ever seen.

Things haven't improved since then.

[MechAg94]

Case in point: 1980 Republican National Convention. Keynote address was by Guy Vander Jagt. The networks were covering the convention and broadcast without interruption a host of minor speakers, but as soon as the KEYNOTE ADDRESS began, they cut away from live coverage and killed time by having the convention coverage anchors interview one another. I remember this as what was - at the time - one of the most blatant examples of journalistic malfeasance and naked anti-Republican bias I had ever seen.

Things haven't improved since then.

I don't know if they did it before, but I remember the anchors commenting over Bush Sr's speech to "correct" him.  I stopping watching Republican stuff on the networks after that.

Bush Sr has plenty of faults, but I at least wanted to hear him without the anchor talking over him.

[230RN]

Internet awareness aside, I first noticed peculiarties in reporting in two ways.

The first was when I got a short wave radio in about 1975 (?) .  I would listen to the various nations' broadcasts and I noticed that too often when an intternational incident was reported, they'd of course report it with each nation's particular slant, but the fact stream would be essentially the same.

But when I read about it in the U.S. news or heard it on TV news, it was like it happened on a different planet.

Same kind of thing happened around then when I was at a political meeting.  I was listening with my own baby blue ears when one of the speakers said "Abcdefg," but the local rag reported it as "Hijklmn" the next day.

I figured the reporter must have had his "Abcdefg" filter in operation.

Once again, like it happened on a different planet.

Terry

[HankB]

I don't know if they did it before, but I remember the anchors commenting over Bush Sr's speech to "correct" him.  I stopping watching Republican stuff on the networks after that.

Bush Sr has plenty of faults, but I at least wanted to hear him without the anchor talking over him.

I remember once I was at home with my folks watching a Reagan speech live - and then the network analysis and comment afterwards.

We looked at each other during the post-speech commentary and asked one another "When did Reagan say THAT?"

The answer, of course - he didn't. The media just lied through their teeth and fabricated it completely.

They haven't cleaned up their act any since then.

[WLJ]

I remember once I was at home with my folks watching a Reagan speech live - and then the network analysis and comment afterwards.

We looked at each other during the post-speech commentary and asked one another "When did Reagan say THAT?"

The answer, of course - he didn't. The media just lied through their teeth and fabricated it completely.

They haven't cleaned up their act any since then.

Nowadays they often don't let you hear the actual speech anymore and just give you their version of the highlights

[MechAg94]

Nowadays they often don't let you hear the actual speech anymore and just give you their version of the highlights

That is pretty much why I signed up for Twitter.  I wanted to be able to pull up what Trump sent out rather than just see what someone said he said.  As with his press conferences, what he said and what they claim he said are often not the same.

[dogmush]

The one constant in my life regarding the media is that when I read a media story about an event I was present for, it is always wrong in the details, and often in the actual event.  I have no reason to assume that journalistic accuracy improves when I am not present.

[cordex]

The one constant in my life regarding the media is that when I read a media story about an event I was present for, it is always wrong in the details, and often in the actual event.  I have no reason to assume that journalistic accuracy improves when I am not present.

I've had the same experience.

[makattak]

I'll take the contrary approach.

It would be refreshing for them to be honest about their blatant bias for a change.