I’m currently reading All the Presidents Men, it’s mainly about the behind the scenes reporting of Carl and Bob. It’s fascinating to read the lengths they went to to try to be accurate. They were...
I’m currently reading All the Presidents Men, it’s mainly about the behind the scenes reporting of Carl and Bob. It’s fascinating to read the lengths they went to to try to be accurate. They were desperate that their articles would not be out of bias or bitterness but that they would be from facts. To do that they used each other and their editor to bounce thoughts off of and the editor would often ask them “do you have proof?” When he asked that he meant 2 or more sources who were not sharing just because they had a grudge.
Anyways it’s a interesting thought in today’s news battlefield, there needs to be a integrity of the author to understand they have a bias and to work to make sure that they get the whole picture in spite of the bias.
Right! I think it's so important to know that you're not writing around your bias, or eliminating your bias completely, but you're writing (if done in good faith at least) knowing that you are...
Right! I think it's so important to know that you're not writing around your bias, or eliminating your bias completely, but you're writing (if done in good faith at least) knowing that you are biased, and that isn't just limited to journalism, that's here or anywhere else where we commoners get to write our opinions. You need to be aware of your bias, and write in a way that shows you are aware of the weaknesses and blind spots your bias leads you to have. You need more supporting evidence if it's an outcome you're hoping for, because otherwise it can either be easily dismissed as "you wanted that to be the result" or "he's just saying that because he already believes that".
There’s a interesting part in that book where due to their bias they misunderstood what their sources gave them and twisted it to fit the narrative they felt was true. They were wrong and it set...
There’s a interesting part in that book where due to their bias they misunderstood what their sources gave them and twisted it to fit the narrative they felt was true. They were wrong and it set back the investigation by a lot.
I think one of the most difficult things for the press right now is the attempt to appear objective to as many people as possible, just regurgitating junk views. There's a false equilibrium when...
I think one of the most difficult things for the press right now is the attempt to appear objective to as many people as possible, just regurgitating junk views.
There's a false equilibrium when you give someone who preaches healing crystals as a treatment for cancer and then have an actual doctor have to shoot them down: You shouldn't ever give junk views attention unless the entire context is explaining how and why they're totally untenable positions.
When you shoot down junk views, the people holding those views think you're taking a stance, when you aren't.
Then when the junk views are part of a political setting, your publication gets accused of picking sides. Although the only side you've picked is the one that demands truthiness as an unconditional prerequisite for reporting. Questions of values or ideals, sure, it's easy to avoid taking a stance there.
That's what objectivity actually entails, not adherence to a false equivalence where you give fringe hacks exposure by virtue of being the most fringe hacks your editorial body could dig up.
Thank you for this timely post. To summarize my observation: The decision to brand oneself as having no sides to take is a side already taken. There's a more derogatory label for the kind of...
Thank you for this timely post.
To summarize my observation: The decision to brand oneself as having no sides to take is a side already taken.
There's a more derogatory label for the kind of "objective" reporting: horse-race journalism.
In Rationality and Power, Flyvbjerg meticulously documents how power shapes knowledge throughout the planning process for a new transit hub in Aalborg. The initial list of proposed sites indicates one as most promising, numerous studies confirm the promise of that site and the problems with other sites. Yet – that “promising” site was, in fact, pre-selected by elites and all the research in which that option naturally rises to the top as the best choice is carefully, artfully curated to ensure that decision.
In Power and Powerlessness, John Gaventa similarly argues that power shapes reality – as people in power get to choose not only what issues are addressed, but also what issues are raised.
Both Flyvbjerg and Gaventa warn about the invisibility of this power – in the most insidious, entrenched power structures, this subtle shaping of what does and does not count as knowledge goes largely unnoticed. It’s just taken as a giving that the issues talked about, and the framing given to them, are the factual, non-biased ways to address them.
And this is what is so dangerous about horse-race politics. It’s presented as neutral, but in fact, it’s not neutral at all. Every decision about what does or does not become part of the conversation shapes the electoral atmosphere. There is no neutral coverage.
Very good (and nice and short) article, thanks! I hope this could work in a better way, but that's just subject to the same issues discussed in the part you quoted; they could just pick which...
Very good (and nice and short) article, thanks!
Instead, the Observer convened representative citizens to choose issues for reporters to investigate and to draft questions that the candidates were asked to answer on the pages of the newspaper
I hope this could work in a better way, but that's just subject to the same issues discussed in the part you quoted; they could just pick which questions (or people) to ask, and have it done "genuinely" instead of through a reporter. I mean, look at how Twitter questions are used on TV sometimes. I wonder if there's a good solution to this?
I don't really watch TV so I'm not quite sure what you mean by "Twitter questions [being] used on TV". I think your question about representation is valid, and I'm puzzled as well. Meanwhile, I...
I don't really watch TV so I'm not quite sure what you mean by "Twitter questions [being] used on TV". I think your question about representation is valid, and I'm puzzled as well.
Meanwhile, I think the problem is not entirely about whether the "convened citizens" are representative. Another dimension is about re-balancing the power imbalance, making the media beholden to the interest and concerns of the stakeholders -- local people, those without a "mainstream" voice and the machinery of media production.
I don't think mainstream social media is making things better in this regard. On the whole they seem to be even more centralizing and devoid of responsibility.
The Twitter questions started, I think, with Idols, The Voice, and programmes like that, where you could tweet with a certain hashtag and they would select a few tweets to show on air. I've seen...
The Twitter questions started, I think, with Idols, The Voice, and programmes like that, where you could tweet with a certain hashtag and they would select a few tweets to show on air. I've seen it happen sometimes with live news as well, which might work well if you're looking for eye witnesses when there are few or none, but can often just be used to get ""the people's real, unfiltered opinion"" which is 99% just the narrative that the news station wants to push anyways. And yes, I don't think mainstream social media is helping at all. WRT the re-balancing thing, it sounds like it would help if local media was run as a coop, that way the local people literally are the stakeholders.
I think in your first example, it's still straightforward mainstream media -> passive audience. The role of Twitter in this relation is part of the mainstream media. This is almost the defining...
I think in your first example, it's still straightforward mainstream media -> passive audience. The role of Twitter in this relation is part of the mainstream media. This is almost the defining characteristic of mainstream; it's not about the viewpoint, editorial content, etc. It's the business model that makes it mainstream.
Related historical perspective on the codependency between the "neutral" media and its abusers: The media and the Ku Klux Klan: a debate that began in the 1920s
A lot of particularly white mainstream dailies are increasingly aware that while denouncing the Klan can gain some readers, it can also lose them readers. The way to benefit is, it seems, to cover the Klan in a fairly neutral light. The problem with that of course is that by attempting to be impartial what you’re really doing is presenting the Klan as normalized and sanitized –controversial, yes, but a popular and widely accepted organization.
[Interviewer] So newspapers looked back and they saw their Pulitzer prize-winning investigations and they ignored the fact that coverage had in fact grown the Klan’s membership.
Yes. There is very little historical awareness of the reality of the relationship between the Klan and the press, which was really a relationship of mutual exploitation, more than anything.
I’m currently reading All the Presidents Men, it’s mainly about the behind the scenes reporting of Carl and Bob. It’s fascinating to read the lengths they went to to try to be accurate. They were desperate that their articles would not be out of bias or bitterness but that they would be from facts. To do that they used each other and their editor to bounce thoughts off of and the editor would often ask them “do you have proof?” When he asked that he meant 2 or more sources who were not sharing just because they had a grudge.
Anyways it’s a interesting thought in today’s news battlefield, there needs to be a integrity of the author to understand they have a bias and to work to make sure that they get the whole picture in spite of the bias.
Right! I think it's so important to know that you're not writing around your bias, or eliminating your bias completely, but you're writing (if done in good faith at least) knowing that you are biased, and that isn't just limited to journalism, that's here or anywhere else where we commoners get to write our opinions. You need to be aware of your bias, and write in a way that shows you are aware of the weaknesses and blind spots your bias leads you to have. You need more supporting evidence if it's an outcome you're hoping for, because otherwise it can either be easily dismissed as "you wanted that to be the result" or "he's just saying that because he already believes that".
There’s a interesting part in that book where due to their bias they misunderstood what their sources gave them and twisted it to fit the narrative they felt was true. They were wrong and it set back the investigation by a lot.
I think one of the most difficult things for the press right now is the attempt to appear objective to as many people as possible, just regurgitating junk views.
There's a false equilibrium when you give someone who preaches healing crystals as a treatment for cancer and then have an actual doctor have to shoot them down: You shouldn't ever give junk views attention unless the entire context is explaining how and why they're totally untenable positions.
When you shoot down junk views, the people holding those views think you're taking a stance, when you aren't.
Then when the junk views are part of a political setting, your publication gets accused of picking sides. Although the only side you've picked is the one that demands truthiness as an unconditional prerequisite for reporting. Questions of values or ideals, sure, it's easy to avoid taking a stance there.
That's what objectivity actually entails, not adherence to a false equivalence where you give fringe hacks exposure by virtue of being the most fringe hacks your editorial body could dig up.
Thank you for this timely post.
To summarize my observation: The decision to brand oneself as having no sides to take is a side already taken.
There's a more derogatory label for the kind of "objective" reporting: horse-race journalism.
Someone said it better than I. Sarah Shugars: Facts, Bias, and Horse-Race Journalism
(Emphasis in bold are mine.)
Very good (and nice and short) article, thanks!
I hope this could work in a better way, but that's just subject to the same issues discussed in the part you quoted; they could just pick which questions (or people) to ask, and have it done "genuinely" instead of through a reporter. I mean, look at how Twitter questions are used on TV sometimes. I wonder if there's a good solution to this?
I don't really watch TV so I'm not quite sure what you mean by "Twitter questions [being] used on TV". I think your question about representation is valid, and I'm puzzled as well.
Meanwhile, I think the problem is not entirely about whether the "convened citizens" are representative. Another dimension is about re-balancing the power imbalance, making the media beholden to the interest and concerns of the stakeholders -- local people, those without a "mainstream" voice and the machinery of media production.
I don't think mainstream social media is making things better in this regard. On the whole they seem to be even more centralizing and devoid of responsibility.
The Twitter questions started, I think, with Idols, The Voice, and programmes like that, where you could tweet with a certain hashtag and they would select a few tweets to show on air. I've seen it happen sometimes with live news as well, which might work well if you're looking for eye witnesses when there are few or none, but can often just be used to get ""the people's real, unfiltered opinion"" which is 99% just the narrative that the news station wants to push anyways. And yes, I don't think mainstream social media is helping at all. WRT the re-balancing thing, it sounds like it would help if local media was run as a coop, that way the local people literally are the stakeholders.
I think in your first example, it's still straightforward mainstream media -> passive audience. The role of Twitter in this relation is part of the mainstream media. This is almost the defining characteristic of mainstream; it's not about the viewpoint, editorial content, etc. It's the business model that makes it mainstream.
Related historical perspective on the codependency between the "neutral" media and its abusers: The media and the Ku Klux Klan: a debate that began in the 1920s
Journalism is dead and has been since it became politically weaponized. When did that happen? Hard to say.