Of course it is not objectivity. But it is journalistic "objectivity." It is what journalists put for objectivity.I doubt the latter even exists.
The conceit that journalism is objective is laughably absurd. Journalism puts its own interest forward as if it were identical with the public interest. That is the very definition of self interestedness, and self interestedness is an antonym for objectivity.
The actionable offense is actually committed by the FCC when it prosecutes people for "broadcast piracy" - presuming to reserve the right of freedom of the press - if broadcasting is "the press" - to some few "licensees" when freedom of the press implies that there can be no such thing as a requirement for a "press license." It is that which is at the root of unconstitutional setting up of media kingpins by the government. So the FCC is the first one to be sued. And that goes double for the Federal Election Commission, when it enforces laws which purport to control what you can say about an incumbent politician within a few weeks of an election - and under what conditions you can use your own money to propagate your political opinions in "the press." If in fact the FCC rules requiring radio transmission to be "in the public interest" are not ruled a complete sham, then the FCC has a duty actually to enforce those rules. And legitimate FCC regulation cannot impose a "Fairness Doctrine" which is "fair" in the same way that "journalistic objectivity" is "objective."The only possible standard which could approximate fairness would be the philosophical standard. Since Socrates, it has been known that arguing from a claim of superior virtue is arrogant. The "Sophists" of ancient Greece argued from claims of superior wisdom ("soph" being the Greek word of wisdom). And of course if I am wise and you are not wise, then whenever we disagree I am automatically right and you are automatically wrong; there is no point in my wise self having to argue with a donderhead like you. And that is the essence of "journalistic objectivity" - journalists dismissing any challenge to their perspective with naked PR power, thinly veiled with fraudulent claims of objectivity which boil down to the fact that all journalists are in cahoots to promote their own interest by equating the interests of journalism with the public interest.
In contrast to the sophists, the "philosophers" disavowed any claim of superior wisdom and claimed only to love wisdom, not to possess it ("philo" = "brotherly love" as "Philadelphia" = "city of brotherly love"). If you love wisdom but do not claim to possess it, you are open to facts and logical argument. And that is what is missing from "objective" journalism. Journalism which claims to be objective claims superior wisdom - and is, demonstrably, sophistry. But the implication of a requirement for the FCC (and FEC) to reject sophistry would be a requirement that the FCC police its licensees to eliminate - not, as is current practice, to promote - "objective" journalism.
That would not eliminate journalism, but it would eliminate what establishment journalists call "journalism." What would remain would be broadcast show hosts who discuss the issues and debate facts and logic. What would remain of broadcast journalism would be talk radio.
NETS AND TOP PAPERS SILENT OVER AL-QAEDA TORTURE HOUSE
MRC ^ | 6/3/07