[Yardstick]

I don’t see how she squares the notion that liberal journalists want to change the world (which she admits in the column) with the notion that liberal journalists want to be objective and unbiased (which she claims in the column). The two are fundamentally at odds and can’t be reconciled. This is the basic disconnect in journalism right now and no amount of self-policing by Obama-voting ombudspeople or conservative affirmative action hires or prosecutorial editing will change it.

[Cowgirl]

Every once in a while there’s a little silver lining in the madness.

[OneHun]

Excellent observation!

[martin_fierro]

Hear, hear.

On Day One of Journalism School, the first professor in the first class should ask the room, “Show of hands: How many of you came to J-School to ‘Make a Difference’?”

(Hands are raised)

“Then to all of those I recommend that you leave immediately and enroll in LAW SCHOOL.”

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

I don’t see how she squares the notion that liberal journalists want to change the world (which she admits in the column) with the notion that liberal journalists want to be objective and unbiased (which she claims in the column). The two are fundamentally at odds and can’t be reconciled. This is the basic disconnect in journalism right now and no amount of self-policing by Obama-voting ombudspeople or conservative affirmative action hires or prosecutorial editing will change it.

Exactly. Nothing can change the inherent tendency of a monopoly organization (the Associated Press and its membership) to promote its own interest and denigrate any and all opposition.

The interest of journalism, hence of the aforementioned monopoly, is in promotion of their talk via the denigration of those who act, who take responsibility for making decisions and living with the consequences.

Journalists bristle at the thought of their coverage being viewed as unfair or unbalanced; they believe that their decisions are journalistically reasonable and that their politics do not affect how they cover and display stories.

They bristle, because they know that there is no possible way to prove the negative that they are not biased.

And because it is in fact true that they are biased.

Their system is to exploit the fact there wouldn't be any way to prove that negative even if it were true, as a way of begging the question. But the reality is that the rules of journalism - "If it bleeds, it leads," "Man Bites Dog, not Dog Bites Man," "Always make your deadline," and so forth - all are designed to interest the public and have less than nothing to do with the public interest, which is quite another matter entirely.