Objective Journalism?

I imagine that journalism is a tough field. Journalists are writers, not subject matter experts, and they are expected to condense a novel's worth of complex, nuanced material into a few blurbs able to be understood by a fifth grader.

racerdave600 wrote: One of the problems we have now is that many owners of news outlets now use them to push their real agendas rather than a source that has to live on it's own.

I realize this is a pipe dream, but I would like to see any show that claims to be News, and any channel that claims to be News.. Limited to something like 10% opinion based presentations/programming.

There are so many news channels running 24/7 that it is impossible to be original without some shenanigans to keep an audience interested.

News used to be news, because it was limited to an hour in the morning and again in the evening. There was no need to fill the other 22 hours with "ratings" worthy content.

It's kinda like Music television...

CNN started out as reasonably straightforward reporting but in a sense the others jumping on the bandwagon to beat CNN's ratings have a lot to do with what's wrong with the 'news' now. And yes it's a lot like MTV. They used to show music videos. Now what do they show? Crappy 'reality' shows. It's like what happened to Speedvision when Fox took over and turned it into NA$CAR TV. It's all about playing to the lowest common denominator, just like Idiocracy predicts.

Mitchell wrote:

Duke wrote:

mad_machine wrote: I will admit that my favourite show on NPR is the Dianne Rheam show. She makes it a point to not only have liberal and conservative guests on.. but sometimes on the same show together

I will admit that I listen to the Dianne Rheam show just to see if she's going to croak off on the air. That woman sounds older than Abe Vigoda.

I originally thought the same thing, but someone else pointed out to me that her voice is caused by the disease spasmodic dysphonia.

Ahh, I had no idea. Thanks for the information.

Curmudgeon wrote: CNN started out as reasonably straightforward reporting....

Even CNN Headline news, arguably the first 24 hour network.. was still ok at the beginning with "Around the world in 30 minutes" basically served on a loop. I swear that was better than the present "HLN" nonsense.

However.. Without modern news, there would be no need for The Daily Show to call them all on the bullE36 M3. And that would be a loss.

as an aside.. when I was doing radio/television. Lady I knew tried to put out a newspaper that only told the "good" side of the news. no murders, no muggings, no car crashes..

I don't think she lasted 6 months before folding

If current journalism was "objective", people would realize the fiscal-cliff controversy is about reigning-in spending, not preserving low tax rates for the rich.

How many headlines or lead stories feature that fact?

That is not a political question. It is an observation that the poobahs and minions of reputable institutions (that claim objectivity) are willing to publish some facts in preference over others.

oldsaw wrote: ....How many headlines or lead stories feature that fact?....

You see there, you have done precisely what I was talking about. You have taken an opinion an rendered it as a fact.

How is it an opinion you ask? Because it would not be difficult to find many economists or financial "experts" who will tell you the important fact of the situation is that cutting spending during a weak economy is a very bad idea and will make the overall problem worse (and many who will disagree with them), or another opinion involving other secondary aspects, of which there are many.

Is it still a fact? The "facts" of the matter you mention are pretty simple (tax changes etc), but the implications are far more complex, convoluted and subject to a pretty wide variety of "expert" opinions that many time contradict each other.

So does presenting that situation as pure fact, removing any opinion, get you ratings? Probably not.

Is it useful? Maybe, but you really have to provide a lot of additional context information, some of which is clouded in opinion. Of course then you may have to figure which opinions to use and which not to bother with, and you may end up with a very convoluted report or one that is open for claims of bias.

I really do think the actual News presentations of most all of the outlets do strive for this. The sad part is, they lack the Drama of the Opiniotainment shows, which seem to be more popular (of course the Kardashians are popular, and millionaires...)

In reply to aircooled:

<==== Starts with a shoulder-shrug and a "thank you" for YOU making YOUR point far better than I allegedly did.

The point is that "journalism" has focused on a single part of what has always consisted of two parts. Ignoring (or burying) the second part of any story and targeting one of two issues shows a bias. It doesn't get much simpler than that.

There was never any attempt (on my behalf) to debate the validity of the spending position. If you want to pursue it, please find another foil on another different forum; this homie ain't playin' that game.

z31maniac wrote: I've said it a ton of times, journalism sucks in its current state because people aren't willing to pay for it.

Meh, that may be part of it. There are plenty of "journalists" making huge amounts of money, though.

The bigger problem is that people reward those who do a poor job and punish those who do a better job. As I'm fond of saying, the NewsHour is still on TV in every major market in the country. You're not watching. I know. I get the overnights.

Another big problem is the fear of offending anyone at all.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

z31maniac wrote: I've said it a ton of times, journalism sucks in its current state because people aren't willing to pay for it.

Meh, that may be part of it. There are plenty of "journalists" making huge amounts of money, though.

The VAST majority of journalists work for you local TV/radio/newspapers, not a syndicated national TV show.

I prefer Radio New Vegas.......top news story, some idiot courier made a recovery from being shot in the head......who would have known?

oldsaw wrote: In reply to Apexcarver: So wait, you had to apply logic and common sense against a (presumably "liberal") prof who then actually conceded to the obvious? What was he pr/teaching that prompted you to challenge his ideas?

He was an ex-newspaper writer who made the move to teaching after the paper he worked for shut down.

He was actually one of my better profs in that he encouraged thinking about things rather than cramming down our throats.

Now, the worst prof I had was actually a physics prof (who only had an astronomy PHD) who was an uber-liberal. Green-this, global warming that, actively trying to get us to vote a certain way. We actually had a class where he somehow morphed universal entropy into an anti-abortion rant. I actually wrote the dean about it and aparrently they had a good chat with him to cut it out or else.

oldsaw wrote: ...There was never any attempt (on my behalf) to debate the validity of the spending position....

Nor is mine. I was simply illustrating that your "fact" was an opinion, of which there are many. You are the one that brought up (unnecessarily I might add) a specific topic.

Although what you stated is an actual truth, it is not necessarily a fact when put in the context of what the topic "is about" (your words).

Also... saying that stories always consist of two parts is overly simplistic for most news and goes back my point about black and white.

oldsaw wrote: If current journalism was "objective", people would realize the fiscal-cliff controversy is about reigning-in spending, not preserving low tax rates for the rich.

Maybe they would realize it wasn't a cliff at all, more like ... dare I go for the double entandre... a bluff?

News slanting starts with the person or entity generating the news. It gets worse when there's a lazy or biased reporter. There's also the crusading type deterined to change the world even if they have to tweak the truth or facts to do it.

Even worse is the so called 'court reporting'. I blame this on Judge Ito not issuing a blanket gag order back during the OJ Simpson trial. The news media took a very serious subject, turned it into a complete circus with his assistance and thanks to that spineless fool they now have a precedent to do the same thing over and over in the name of 'the people need to know'. But really it's about ad ratings.

Curmudgeon wrote: News slanting starts with the person or entity generating the news. It gets worse when there's a lazy or biased reporter. There's also the crusading type deterined to change the world even if they have to tweak the truth or facts to do it. Even worse is the so called 'court reporting'. I blame this on Judge Ito not issuing a blanket gag order back during the OJ Simpson trial. The news media took a very serious subject, turned it into a complete circus with his assistance and thanks to that spineless fool they now have a precedent to do the same thing over and over in the name of 'the people need to know'. But really it's about ad ratings.

For some, it's not even about ad ratings anymore. Look at MSNBC. They have horrible ratings. Indycar can pull better ratings! I would bet a large market network local news would beat them. They don't care. They're funded to get out a point of view and that's it. Unfortunately that's getting to be the norm.

Back in my day (damn I'm old) you'd have been off the air with ratings like theirs. CNN isn't much better, and the ABC, CBS, NBC news aren't fairing well either. Even FOX is slipping from it's once lofty ratings.

Just using our small sampling, I think it's safe to say people are sick of it. We want real news, and we do not want another supposed "expert" telling us what we're looking at. Personally, I'm on a TV news boycott, not that anyone notices or cares.

z31maniac wrote: The VAST majority of journalists work for you local TV/radio/newspapers, not a syndicated national TV show.

Uh, yeah. So do I. And, yeah. A lot of them ain't hard up for cash.

racerdave600 wrote: For some, it's not even about ad ratings anymore. Look at MSNBC. They have horrible ratings. Indycar can pull better ratings! I would bet a large market network local news would beat them.

Oh, MSNBC is in it for the money just like all of them. I'd wager MSNBC clears $150M a year profit. Most of their programming is really inexpensive to produce and they have more than enough viewers to sell advertising. No one is funding them other than their sales team.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

z31maniac wrote: The VAST majority of journalists work for you local TV/radio/newspapers, not a syndicated national TV show.

Uh, yeah. So do I. And, yeah. A lot of *them* ain't hard up for cash.

racerdave600 wrote: For some, it's not even about ad ratings anymore. Look at MSNBC. They have horrible ratings. Indycar can pull better ratings! I would bet a large market network local news would beat them.

Oh, MSNBC is in it for the money just like all of them. I'd wager MSNBC clears $150M a year profit. Most of their programming is really inexpensive to produce and they have more than enough viewers to sell advertising. No one is funding them other than their sales team.

I bet they clear more than that. There is a local newscaster on Channel 6 out of Philly.. WPVI. jim Gardner. He has been on the air there since I was a little kid 40 years ago.. he makes over a million a year

yamaha wrote: I prefer Radio New Vegas.......top news story, some idiot courier made a recovery from being shot in the head......who would have known?

I think I might need to check them out more. I've been listening to Black Mountain Radio a lot, and they just seem a little bit too biased for me.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

oldsaw wrote: If current journalism was "objective", people would realize the fiscal-cliff controversy is about reigning-in spending, not preserving low tax rates for the rich.

Maybe they would realize it wasn't a cliff at all, more like ... dare I go for the double entandre... a bluff?

http://instantrimshot.com/

I'm not a journalist, but I do write freelance with online sites like Huffington Post, Hemmings, and a few others.

My question is, which came first? The chicken or the egg? Straight, accurate news is boring. We want the hollywood scoop version. Would those photographers have pursued Princess Di so fervently had we not made a market in which those reports were so valuable? Would they have chased so intently if we didn't buy 25% more copies of the Enquirer when her face was on the front?

aircooled wrote:

oldsaw wrote: ...There was never any attempt (on my behalf) to debate the validity of the spending position....

Nor is mine. I was simply illustrating that your "fact" was an opinion, of which there are many. You are the one that brought up (unnecessarily I might add) a specific topic. Although what you stated is an actual truth, it is not necessarily a fact when put in the context of what the topic "is about" (your words). Also... saying that stories always consist of two parts is overly simplistic for most news and goes back my point about black and white.

I referred to the specific topic because it is a timely and current example on how stories can be manipulated and tailored to make the writer's point.

Please explain context. Is it what I intended or how you want to perceive it?

News stories consist of many parts but often (not always) are represented by two sides. The task for a writer is to articulate the facts as accurately as possible, within the word or time limit allowed and to do so without taking sides. If the author cannot do that, then the end-product is tainted with bias, or maybe plain old incompetence.

In the negotiation coverage, media took a an integrated strategy, broke it into two sections, emphasized one and almost ignored the other. It's just my opinion, but I think it's a pretty easy task to sum it up in its' entirety and offer it for general consumption.