(Thanks for the ping -- however, even before I did a self-search, as soon as I saw the title of this thread I stopped in...)
The points are all good. And there's so much more that could be said.
Most people have no idea what goes on even in Journalism 101. Kids, aspiring newhounds, are taught that "objectivity" is impossible. Kids are taught that rather than _trying_ to be objective, the reasonable thing to do is to choose a point-of-view and deal with it. (I heard a journalist on talk radio just yesterday discussing this point.)
Also, there are serious political problems with journalism in the modern world.
The Constitution provides means for impeaching an elected politician. But our culture provides NO MECHANISM AT ALL for removing journalists who prove themselve to be scum.
(The media is controlled by businessmen and businesswomen -- (you know, the exact same way the libertarians what _ALL_ culture to be configured) and as far as the business folk are concerned, if a journalist is fulfilling _some_ purpose -- advocating an agenda, gathering info, implementing leverage -- then that journalist is going to stay around regardless of how many people hate him or her. Heck, in demographic talk, _hate_ is a _good thing_ because it translates into high "Q"...)
Remember, it was Frank Zappa who wrote the couplet: "Journalism's kind of scary/And of it we should be wary" Mark W.
That is where conservatives have long been stuck, but when you consider that journalism is provably not unbiased, under the Constitution the FCC does not have the right to allow the broadcasting of journalism. The FCC and its licensees can be sued and forced by SCotUS to desist (provided that the Administration will enforce SCotUS's ruling, something I wouldn't bet a nickel on had Gore been named president as SCoFl attempted to assure.
I am proposing a way that our society actually could and should impeach broadcast journalism en masse.
I've got news for you, man: "aspiring newshounds" aren't taught that "objectivity" is impossible---they know it already. This is so obvious I'm surprised you made the statement. If 100 people witnessed the exact same car crash, you'd get 100 stories about it that were completely different. The facts may be roughly the same, but each take would be different. That's the angle. Angle = objectivity.Absolute objectivity is absolutely impossible, and even it it were possible, it would make for an incredibly boring, milquetoast piece that wasn't worth writing, reading, taping, or broadcasting. Objectivity is the angle, the passion, that each writer or broadcaster brings to his subject. News coverage is flat and meaningless without objectivity.
The mistake you make is to assume that objectivity is possible or even desirable. Every newspaper, radio station, or television station has a voice. Up until very recently, this was a given: Democrats read one paper, Republicans another, and each paper's readership was well aware of its particular slant. The same holds true today, only that in a move to increase market share, news outlets bill themselves as "objective" news sources when they're not. They're lying to your face. I'll say it again---there's no such thing as an objective news source---there never was one, nor should there ever be one. You're a sucker if you think there is. It's your mission as a consumer to filter the objectivity and get the real news. You can read more than one paper or watch more than one news program.
The problem today is that most people who make the editorial decisions and do the hiring in major media outlets are leftists---the '60s relics and their ideological children, and that's no rhetorical bullshit (I've seen it first-hand). They only hire people like themselves. Writers, reporters, etc. with political views right of socialist have very little opportunity for employment, let alone for getting their "objective" takes read or heard.
I'm one class away from earning an MA in journalism at a Massachusetts university. I know all about J-school.
Most people have no idea what goes on even in Journalism 101. Kids, aspiring newhounds, are taught that "objectivity" is impossible. Kids are taught that rather than _trying_ to be objective, the reasonable thing to do is to choose a point-of-view and deal with it. (I heard a journalist on talk radio just yesterday discussing this point.)
Not in my clases they ain't.
I mention to my students that objectivity is nearly impossible (we carry a mind-set to every story we write, for example) .. but that we should at least strive for impartiality, which is as close as we can ever get.
Regards
Sadim
...or Juan Williams and Mara Liason would've been toast faster than Baghdad Bob was absented after he first stepped into the Klieg lights (in earnest) some six weeks ago.
HF
"Kids, aspiring newhounds, are taught that "objectivity" is impossible. Kids are taught that rather than _trying_ to be objective, the reasonable thing to do is to choose a point-of-view and deal with it. (I heard a journalist on talk radio just yesterday discussing this point.)"
Well, no pun intended, this is news to me. My professor (Western Kentucky University) pounded objectivity into our heads. He told us that while absolute objectivity isn't always possible, it should be the goal. Before you write my professor off as some Backwater State U. hick, realize that Western has perennially one of the top rated broadcasting schools in the nation, rivaling Missouri and Washington for top honors. What happens to some young cub reporter after he or she goes off to the "real" world isn't necessarily the fault of the professor that spawned him or her. It's that of the news director, the program director, or peer pressure from fellow reporters, either at the station where he or she works, or at competing stations.
Story selection is one area where it can be hard to hide bias...even C-SPAN has to pick and choose which events to which they'll take their cameras, and these events are often chosen by the news director's personal biases. But, if the news director is a professionsal, who values truth more than advancing an agenda, even this problem can be overcome. When I was ran a radio news operatrion, I demanaded objectivity of my reporters and anchors. I had two die-hard liberals, one die-hard conservative, and one libertarian on the full-time staff, as well as my own conservative-libertarian beliefs to contend with. To my staff's credit, they did a great job of telling the who, what, where, when and how, and leaving the why up to the listeners. They would cut a number of reports on any given story, telling it from both perspectives, but always including at least a line or two from the opposition. Objectivity can be achieved, it just takes professionalism on the part of the news staff and management.
"But our culture provides NO MECHANISM AT ALL for removing journalists who prove themselve to be scum."
Sure it does, but listeners, readers and viewers have to be proactive in getting scumbag reporters fired. Bombard the station or paper with complaints, and make sure they're good ones. Simply saying you don't like your blow dried, bleached blonde, dingbat reporterette's anti-gun bias (for example) won't get you anything but a form letter reply from the station, taking her side. But if you cite why she's wrong, how that reflects poorly on the station's credibility, and that you're going to take your viewership or listenership, and your support for the station's sponsors elsewhere, you'll get their attention. Nothing speaks louder to a station's management than money. But you have to get a number of people to help you, because one lone complaint doesn't usually get past a general manager's circular file.
So, if Americans want to continue to be lazy and just accept what they're offered from the criminal, liberal mainstream news media, that's exactly what they'll get. But we don't have to settle for the leftist dogma we're being fed.
"Also, there are serious political problems with journalism in the modern world."
Yes there are, but only because we let it happen. Think of how CNN and MSNBC are trying to copy Fox these days...they're failing, but they're trying. Sooner or later it'll occur to CommieLib News that the reason they're getting their lunch eaten is not FNC's young, hip style, but their attempt to be "fair and balanced". Even FNC can't be completely objective, but believe me, they do a much better job of telling both sides of a story than any of their competition, be it cable or broadcast.
The American news consumer has more power than he thinks. He can move mountains, but not by himself, and not just by sitting around and complaining about it.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
There may be no way to remove a journalist, but there is a way to mitigate the damage.
Ridicule.
Having actually taken Journalism 101, and subsequent courses, I can pretty much say that's bunk. The truth is that journalism as a major is rather dry and techincal. 101 basically covers the basic writing styles, pyramid, inverse pyramid, some basic headline stuff, how to calculate the word count into inches, etc etc. Then you get to move on to the really fun courses like intro editing, which is copy-editing and is about exciting as watching water sit in glass, and about as political as the average poodle. Don't even get me started on photojournalism, one of the few courses I ever had to repeat.