My SO and I were commenting this morning on the media’s lack of objectivity. We don’t have a lot of choice on TV/Radio news (NPR, CBS, NBC, etc. etc. all have their political leanings) but there are a lot of newspapers out there. I mentioned the New York Times as potentially being an objective paper. He said he thought not. We’re both pretty sure our local Denver Post has it’s own leanings. So is there an objective daily news source out there? What do you read to get a good idea of what’s really going on, as opposed to how the media wants to spin things?
In a nutshell, I don’t think there is. The C-L used to be, before being stolen by the Gannett news service, an extinsion of the politics of the Family that owned it. Now it falls into the typical Gannett mold, liberal apologetics and general bullshit.
Comment from the editor, published years ago.
“We’re here to stir up debate, not be objective.”
Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting, a media watchdog group, has a good site addressing some of the topics that the media doesn’t always like to tell the full story about.
I have never read a truly objective newspaper.
I don’t think it’s possible to HAVE an objective newspaper.
Even FAIR, the organization neutron star mentions, leans heavily to the left (but covers far more than what the mainstream covers). There are similar media watchdog organizations on the right as well.
Your best bet is to NEVER FORGET that media is, by default, ALWAYS subjective. You also want to know which way a particular newspaper leans, because that gives you a better idea of what their agenda is.
Given these parameters, you can feel comfortable reading both socialist-left and conservative-right media knowing where they are coming from… and will be all the better informed about it. The right will cover things the left won’t, and vice versa. Best to be your OWN judge on this stuff, instead of just letting them spoon-feed it to you.
One of the first things I learnt as a (former) journalist is that objectivity is impossible.
You later learn that the higher up you go it becomes more and more scarce (though it does take different forms).
So, the answer is, sadly, no.
The Independant is fairly neutral on many issues, but it does not shy away from taking a position but it will usually explain the reasoning behind it.
This leads to it being described as The Indescribeably boring.
Speaking as a guy who’s been in the media for too long (magazines, newspapers, etc…all print) and not on the journalistic side of the house (I’m a business guy, circulation…marketing…and so forth) I can say I’ve never seen an objective publication. We’re always thrown objectivity to the wind. There can be many reasons for this: political leanings (less often than most might think), a desire to inflame a story or keep one going, a need to impress a potential advertiser, sensationalism to move subscriptions, as well as others.
It’s all well and good to have high ideals but let’s remember that it’s a business. The sad fact is that objective reporting doesn’t move newspapers.
is there such a thing as a totally objective human?
I believe local newspapers tend to “lean” in the same direction as their readership. I would also imagine that the large papers, located in the larger cities would not lean quite as far one way or the other. Simply because they have as a rule a larger and more diverse population of readers.
Needs2know
The Independent isn’t independent, it’s indecisive. It vacillates between slightly left and slightly right, and as you said casdave it ends up boooring.
Every paper I’ve read takes an editorial stance on subjects, and it obviously influences the “spin” on headlines (“Mob riots force paedophiles underground” vs “People power keeps our streets safe”). I can’t see how a paper could every really be neutral without being unutterably dull.
The Christian-Science Monitor routinely is cited as about the most objective newspaper out there, IIRC.