Anyone else think "Objective Journalism" is bullshit?

[HEyHEY]

I was at a party the other night, and heard a guy talking about the Hindeburg disaster, saying the "Oh the humanity" line was wrong because journalism was objective.
I, and amazingly was sober, said "Bullshit man" and spoke my views of how "Objective Journalism" was a Pile of shit because it hides slants under the guise of being objective. And in places like Britain the attitude is "We're left/right and if you don't like it, read somethingelse."

Your opinion?

[wtmusic]

1. There is no *completely* objective journalism

journalism is "news", and news is just new events that people want to hear about. Do people want to hear the truth?

[HEyHEY]

2. That's just it, why try?

Pump out your shit and hope for the best

[burrowowl]

3. I agree

objectivity is impossible, you always have to select facts to report. I prefer France or Mexico where you know it is left or right and read article ith this in mind.
There is hardly anything in America that is not right or extreme-right and people think it is centrist or god-forbid 'liburul'. It is a crock of ....!

[LSdemocrat]

4. Objective journalism is fine, falsely "balanced" journalism is our problem

It would be great if American media was actually objective and reported based on factual, confirmed information instead of reporting spin and wasting time with inane "analysts".

False balance, what most American media outlets do, is just reporting what each side says and not checking it with the facts.

[imenja]

5. Objectivity doesn't exist

but it's important for journalists to try to be fair and honest. That doesn't mean the kind of ridiculous even-handedness that passes for balanced journalism today--as though truth were always somewhere in the middle.

[RPM]

6. not bullshit...

...rather : dead.

dead as a doornail.

Unlike accountants should just tally numbers and not spin them as good or bad; so should journalists report simple facts and experiences and not attempt to frame them in any political context.

Of course the fat slobby proles of america might have to think and put the information into context.... so that will never work

[fwiff]

7. There's no such thing as being purely objective

Any journalist is a filter- and if you're good and have priorities you can constantly be aware of that and filter as little as possible.

That doesn't necessarily make good journalism- it can make good reporting.
I don't think there's anything wrong with being human (like your hindenburgh example)- emotions make it more real and powerful.
The problem only comes when people don't acknowledge where their biases are and promote themselves as objective.
Any of us who sees a consistent news source knows what bias to expect when we pick up a specific paper, mag or watch tv.

[warrens]

8. I have this argument all the time

I get hate mail from the left and the right all the time. Mainly from the right, of course. The standard to me is informed fairness. Like, getting into a he said/she said about whether having breathable air is a good thing is idiotic. NPR fell into this trap, letting idiots from the Heritage Foundation represent the right, with a college professor as the left. So one guy is talking about reality and the other is spewing nutwig ideology. Tavis Smiley actually called me, when I pointed out he was being played for a sucker by nutbars from FreeRepublic (the notorious TrueBlackMan asshole from Baltimore and his Conservative Black Republicans or whatever he called his group, which was him and his wife and 20 white shitheads like Brent Bozell; I sent him the posts gloating about how they had conned Smiley and others). I am an liberal, but as a journalist, I present both sides FAIRLY. I am not willing to let a nutcase speak for either side.

I mean, I have been wrong before. So I am willing to listen to all sides of an issue. But at some point, you DO say, "oh the humanity." Like there was a side that said, being burned to death and plummeting to the earth is a GOOD thing?

[miss_kitty]

11. so what did Tavis Smiley say about being played by those guys?

I like him.in fact he should be on right now...HE IS!

[Gyre]

9. I haven't seen any of that for a long time.

Sucks that every journalist is now a godamn expert on whatever subject they're pontificating on. Only problem is that damn few really are. But the public is gullible and doesn't want to think for themselves so they're more than willing to be led around by BS. At least they don't have to hurt themselves thinking that way.

I personally, resent being told how to view anything.

Gyre

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

10. It has never truly existed. It is an ideal to which we aspire

but cannot achieve. The holy grail of information portals.
Some have come close on certain issues, and yet remained blind on others.
That we pretend that it has even been attempted on TV at all since the retirement of Murrow, is a horrendous joke. Even Walter Cronkite freely admits that TV news was and is "filtered" and "best used to scan headlines."
People confuse the effort to gain objectivity with the ideal of a free, independent press in their minds. They assume that beause the presses are free, the market will allow all points of view equal access, which should be a vaild supposition, but, as we know, it is a total fallacy.
Where are the channels for Native Americans, Aleuts, GBLT, Blacks, poor folks of all colors? Where is Union TV? Leftist roundtable? Peace headline news?
Don't try to find them, they don't exist.
Thus, there is no objectivity. No diversity No currency of these points of view in the public debate
And it will only get worse as the media outlet ownership consolodates more and more.

[miss_kitty]

12. I think there are attempts at it

I mean it's all about language, vocabulary choices and adjectives and stuff. How you craft your tale.

I took off a local anchor for referring to Iraqi citizens who were fighting against occupying US troops as 'terrorists.' I told them they already have an editorial guy and if they wanted to continue to tell stories in the way their anchor had done, they needed to stop calling their show 'The News'.

He could have told the same story without inferring the victims were the offenders. This is what the right has done to the media. Somewhat sly (Not really, once you know what to watch for) and enough of the truth in there and they can still call it news.

Don't even get me started on the BBC's reportage on the US backed coup d'etat against the democratically elected gov't of Jean-Bertrand Aristide in Haiti

[elperromagico]

13. You learn nothing from hearing two people shout their talking points,

and that's what American "objective journalism" is about these days.

I am not so much interested in fairness or objectivity as I am in simply giving people as much information as possible - so that they can reach their own conclusions.

[Swamp Rat]

14. Doesn't exist

We should be discussing ETHICS in journalism.