Posted on 08/10/2016 3:33:29 AM PDT by cba123
Limiting my remarks to the "straight news," and excluding "OpEd" and other admittedly advocacy pieces, all journalists "purport" to having objectivity as a criteria for their output. My contention is that "purporting" and "intending" are different. Of course the press "purports" to be objective. My point of view is that the contention of objectivity is itself a misrepresentation.
-- If he selects and inserts only those facts that attempts to shape a false narrative, then his writing is worthless to anyone who is interested in discerning the truth. --
Not worthless, or at least not necessarily. A critical thinker will question the objectivity and even the raw facts. A non-critical thinker accepts the claim of "objectivity" and leaps to the conclusion they have been accurately informed, and their impression of the event (created only by the journalist) is an accurate one.
Out of necessity, we are forced to rely on biased writing and accounts of events. We draw facts from the articles, sometimes corroborated (sometime contradicted) by contemporaneous recordings of the events.
-- newspapers once guarded their reputations as purveyors of factual information when covering the news, since their readership would disappear if their readers began to doubt the veracity of their reporting. --
My point is that the "reputation as purveyors of factual information" is a reputation fabricated by the press. It is part of the big lie. Of course they guard this myth. Once the people see the emperor naked, he loses his power. I don't think the readership disappears. All that disappears is the trust that the gullible people gave up, to an institution that has never been trustworthy.
At any rate, just nitpicking. I see that we agree, except maybe on the point of whether "objective journalism" ever existed as a substantial social force, and if it did, when it did. It certainly doesn't exist today. I don't think it is healthy for a society to ever grant trust to an institution, not to the government, and not to the press. Both are centers of power, and both can be and are routinely abused.
That tradition is a myth now. Objectivity has been receding in journalism for the past half-century.
Thank you for the most accurate statement on this thread. The old media is no friend of American citizens.
The amazing part is that Hearst's (and Pulizter's) model became the standard. While railing against the evils of yellow journalism, the press repackaged their bias as objective journalism. Restricting the "bias" to opinion pages granted the editorial wizards free reign in promoting their views through much more effective means.
Controlling content through syndication and distribution solidified the industry's monopoly on the "objective" truth. Regardless of the veracity of the content, the very selection of the content can sway the national conversation to a greater measure.
This method has been perfected for the decades since the deaths of the evil press moguls. Though nothing truly changed, the media wrapped itself in the mantle of unassailable truth and relegated their true bias to the dustbin of history. The money, the power, and the corruption remained, and a shiny new reputation was born. The television era reinforced this through its charismatic reporters-men with gravitas, men of renown. They played like princes on the world stage, while fostering their "everyman" image for a trusting audience.
It worked very well, but the facade is crumbling and some have realized the truth is still there, just outside the carefully-managed narratives. Was the press ever some bastion of virtue? Was it interested in truth? Many worked toward those aims, but they worked at odds to a system whose primary focus was on the increase of money and power.
The purpose of objectivity in journalism is the pursuit of revealing the truth. In the past, journalists were driven to uncover facts that led their readers to understand the hidden reality behind situations and people in the news. What we see today in journalism is the creation of mendacious propaganda that tries to create an alternate reality. Why would anyone continue to read stories that are a pack of lies that serve only to obfuscate and confuse the pursuit of revealing the truth? I stopped reading newspapers and stopped watching TV newscasts long ago. The media was already bastardized as long ago as the era of Yellow Journalism. The popular media was full blown communist during the Cronkite era.””
Spot on. Kroonkite and his media had people spitting on our soldiers, then, to top that they elected a Marxist Muslim to the highest office in the land.
Hell, they owe it to the American public!
Thanks for posting the graphic. Very informative.
Historians are not supposed to write about events less than twenty years old. Why not? Simple - nobody can know that they are objective. You can try to be objective, you can even say that you are trying to be objective (if you in fact are). But to actually believe that you are objective is sheer hubris.It is an objective fact, contested by nobody, that journalists know, and act on the knowledge, that bad news sells. “If it bleeds, it leads.” For a journalist who knows that he is on the lookout for bad news to claim that journalists are objective is to claim that negativity is objectivity. But a belief that negativity is objectivity is the defining characteristic of cynicism. And also of socialist politics. Hence, journalism is inherently socialist in outlook.
Silly question! The media IS the opposition!
If these times were like the revolutionary war days, we would be lined up, face to face, with the liberals AND the media.
The Liberals and the media would be wearing identical uniforms.
You’re welcome.
This is neither the media we knew when younger, nor is it the country of our youth.
“Houston, we have a problem”. The Media are trying to destroy us, our country, and our way of life.
If you won’t even recognize who the real enemy is, how are you going to defeat them?
If we made an all out attack (attention liberals... by attack I don’t mean MURDER them), on the media....
Notice I am not saying “Main Stream” Media because it is almost ALL media. Are Glenn Beck, Mark Levin, Erick Erickson, Rush Limbaugh, Politico, Huffington Post, Faux News, and the list goes on and on, “Main Stream? I digress...
If we had an all out attack on the media, we would be attacking the ROOT problem. The “media” is the super weapon our enemies use against everything righteous people believe in and we don’t have one!
Rush would say “I’m one”, no you are not Rush. You are a squirt gun, peeing in the ocean.
We know we are losing this war because the sheeple have been convinced, by the media, that you can identify as any sex you choose and such men can use the ladies room and such women can use the mens room, codified in LAW!
I know there are many more serious examples, but if, as in this case, the media can convince a majority of people that up is down, wrong is right, winning is losing, criminals are the good guys and the cops are the bad guys, and that left is right, how can we just sit here and do NOTHING?
The water is getting very warm, it’s time to JUMP!
C'mon, objectivity has been sorely lacking in media coverage of any political topic to the right of Mao for nearly fifty years.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahaha!!!!
Since when did that happen?
All of the reasons given for rejecting Trump in the posted text are either lies or distortions from the media. How indeed can you support someone after you lie about them then believe your own lies?
thought this would interest u being from NYC
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/presidential/20160810_ap_5deaa60219bf42efbc87e780d92dfc78.html
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.