I think the point is that traditional journalism should report facts, like where he went to school, if he has family, what organizations he belongs to and so on. It gives the reader the respect to determine his own opinion of the candidate.
It’s fact that most newspapers have had a political bent but classical journalism requires that those be expressed on the editorial page and not inserted into news articles.
ETA: In other words, a reporter’s opinion is not news and as such does not belong in a news article.
Well, that’s a breathtakingly ignorant notion of what everything in the journalism-history axis is all about. But after decades of teaching something called “history” by making students memorize and regurgitate factoids, I guess it’s not a surprising one.
As you go out into the world to find that it is almost inconceivably more complex than you have yet been taught, keep this thought foremost: There is absolutely no such thing as an objective viewpoint. To think that “news” can be reported as a series of facts, with not a trace of judgment, analysis, concatenation or ordering, is as naive a viewpoint as… I don’t know, cutting off all “welfare” would make everyone get a job. Or slashing 50% of government jobs would make the world right. Or much of any other bumper-sticker tropes.
That’s a very strange post, Barbarian. Rude and presumptive, as well.
I am offering you the definition of journalism that I was taught while I was acquiring a major in English nearly forty years ago.
I ache for your students. When proffering new information to other people I’ve found that a human-to-human approach works well and helps create an open mind in your student. I think they call that meeting others on an equal basis.
Now if you can step away from the podium for a moment, explain exactly what you are talking about and make a more humane attempt to disabuse me of my definition I will certainly read it.
I dont think there has NOT been some bias. It isnt always political either. Sometimes its towards people with money or the advertisers.
Its interesting that here in the US when a small town first appeared on the open prairie one of the first businesses usually was a newspaper. Sometimes they did their printing under a tent (or a tree) with whatever ink or paper was available. And there was always controversy. In many a case a newspaperman was forced to run a retraction at the point of a shotgun.
But the news has usually had truth in it. For example they might have reported someones cow being stolen and then thrown in an opinion of if they deserved it or not.
I don’t think it’s any of the above, given what I’m responding to.
The idea that news reporting is, has ever been, should be or even CAN be “completely unbiased” is wishful thinking when it’s not misdirected nonsense. The same is true in spades for history. Yes, yes, in all those idealistic 101 classes, it’s presented as some kind of achievable ideal, but by the time you actually get a journalism or history degree you’ve been taught a far deeper and more nuanced portrait of how factual information is processed and retold.
Things don’t just happen in a vacuum; they happen in a context. There is no way to describe a situation and its context from a truly objective viewpoint. No, “just listing the facts” is not an option for 99% of human events. Honestly, it’s popular perception that such a thing is possible or even desirable that is assisting the news-benders. See, THEY tell you “just the facts” whether they call it neutrality, “fair and balanced,” objective, whatever… it’s those OTHER guys who spin everything. And gosh-a-roonie, the other guys say the same thing. So you choose the presentation that best fits your preconceptions, ideas and prejudices, and guess what: they’re right!
It’s a hard lesson and one that goes against our culture of faux egalitarianism and objective observation. But there ain’t no setch thing as an objective view of news events - or history - and the sooner you understand that the sooner you’ll find a more comfortable balance with the information you’re presented.
Television news is a product. The product is sometimes tailored for the consumers. Some people do not want unbiased reporting. So the people that ‘sell’ the news make a more palatable product for their consumers.
Facts can be negative, not just opinions.
Case in point: a woman running for state senate was arrested for shoplifting and pleaded guilty. She claimed that she put a bunch of clothes in a bag by accident and walked out - but the store had been watching her from previous visits.
Her mailers didn’t mention this at all. The paper then reported on it in the news columns (and later in an editorial.) Was this report negative? You betcha. Was it objective. Yes, it reported the facts and did not claim that she intentionally tried to steal the clothes, though we can draw our own conclusions.
A paper supporting her could kill the story. A paper opposing her could put it on the front page. An unbiased paper could put it in the local section. Which of these three placements of the same story is unbiased to you?
Even an objective paper might have put it on the front page in a slow news day being more interesting than other stories. An unbiased paper could kill if if we just had an earthquake or something. Not so simple, is it?
I don’t find that difficult. Perhaps a right-leaning paper’s editor may have difficulty reporting on one of their candidate’s arrests or where to place it but that is only because he is attempting to manipulate the reader in some way. .
My point is that, other than a straight reporting of the who, what, why, where and when of the arrest needs to be saved for the area of the paper known as the editorial section. It’s unprofessional reporting to add words that obviously attempt to color perception of the candidate.
It’s true that we all have a different way of viewing situations so there will be a natural bias as to what information is important. That’s why the guideline of who, what, why, where and when keeps the reporting clean. Unless a reporter’s information is faulty, he is inept or he’s downright manipulative and dishonest he stands a good chance of getting the news across with the least bias possible.
And that is the job of a news reporter. His job is not to try to influence his readers. That is for those who write of columns and editorials.
Barbarian: News reporting = who, what why, where and when. And yes, many are unable to keep from inserting their own bias. As long as there’s life there’s hope, I suppose. No one’s asking perfection, just an honest effort.
Your idealism is commendable. Your grasp of communication is… not. It’s already been pointed out that even your “five W’s” lend themselves to quite a bit of manipulation. It is fairly easy to demonstrate that 5Ws alone are not sufficient to convey many news stories; the very moment you get into any surrounding context, causes, results, impact, anything you’re into selective judgment by the writer and editors - bias, if you like.
If what you really mean here are the egregious examples that are 10% facts and the remainder irrelevant factoids and the writer’s opinions… that’s not news. Nor history. The passing off of such on the front page of newspapers or news sites is the problem, exactly as if they were posting pages from a novel there.
Being against such extremely subjective pieces is a trivial stance shared by a vast number of those who take themselves seriously as journalists and historians. But trying to push the bar all the way to the other end, that nothing like opinion or subjectivity is allowed… is somewhere between naive and misguided. Really. Communication, whether between two people or from one to millions, doesn’t rest on “facts” - because in news especially, the “facts” themselves might be widely disputed.
A reporter shouldn’t be held to any higher standard than any writer here. And that is to think and operate with his intellect at the fore and his ego/emotions in the background. It isn’t naïve or idealistic to expect that from an educated person. Where those things come into play is in believing that he is willing or able to do so.
If you could have resisted using negative modifiers and twisting my words I believe we could have had an honest and extended conversation. But the exchange has provided a sufficient example of what I’ve been talking about.
The only term I used that could be construed as rude is “breathtakingly ignorant” - and I will stand behind that, given that you are a college-educated 60-something writer and not some freshman nebbish. You really hit that age - which is just a bit past mine, by the way - without a more balanced sense of what journalism and history represent? I don’t think “breathtakingly ignorant” is too far out of line, no matter how much it may sting.
If you don’t like that I am disagreeing with you - which is all the rest of my posts are doing - then… well, sorry. You’re welcome to climb in your Huff and drive away believing you’ve been abused and that I’ve “twisted your words.”
***There is no such thing as an absolute objective viewpoint. ***If you can’t come to terms with that, your arguments are going to get “twisted.”
One of the most prestigious journalism awards is named after the pioneer of yellow journalism.
The news isn’t there to check the government as the “fourth estate” or inform the people. Its purpose is to make money for the shareholders and promulgate their owner’s views. The articles are the filler, the product is the ads.
