IMHO when it come to an effort at objectivity, story selection doesn't make it hard--story selection is a show-stopper.Most days, to state the blindingly obvious, nothing unusual happens that remotely compares in importance with, for example, a provision of the Constitution. But because journalism systematically exaggerates the importance of the new, journalism has blinders on when it comes to what is important in the long run.
And that is a perspective (to use a neutral term rather than the perjorative "bias") which is embedded in the very definition of journalism. An anticonservative perspective.
And even if you believe that journalism is or can be conducted without laying most of the emphasis on the negative (which insinuates that the powers-that-be are insufficiently benevolent or insufficiently powerful), the superficiality of journalism has that inherent effect. Most good things that happen (e.g., the completion of the World Trade Center) are foreseeable and thus only somewhat newsworthy compared with the malicious destruction of the WTC on 9/11.
No, you cannot choose your news stories carefully and avoid an anticonservative perspective; once you decided to be a journalist rather than a nonfiction book writer you have already incorporated a superficial and negative perspective into the very basis of your operation. Thus a "balanced" journalism which gives equal weight to liberal and conservative perspectives looks "conservative" to the typical journalist--and yet predictably is not conservative enough to optimally predict future historical perspective of presently-current events.
Well, I'm not sure what you mean by story selection being a show stopper. What I meant when I said that story selection makes it hard to hide bias is that when a news director makes a decision about which stories are included in a 'cast, or how the stories are stacked, he places value on each story. His biases are revelaed in how much importance he assigns to each story. A liberal news director will put more value on a story about a bill being debated to close the "gun show loophole" than he will the companion interview with a gun show operator, where he explains how there's no such thing as a "gun show loophole". The news director has given equal time to both stories, yes, and therefore it can be said he's making an effort to be fair and balanced. But his bias against guns is revealed in how he stacks those stories within the 'cast. Of course, he could make an effrot at objectivity by stacking the next hour's newscast the other way around...the gun show operator first, then the "loophole" bill.
"Most days, to state the blindingly obvious, nothing unusual happens that remotely compares in importance with, for example, a provision of the Constitution. But because journalism systematically exaggerates the importance of the new, journalism has blinders on when it comes to what is important in the long run."
The first thing we need to do here is differentiate between "news" and "journalism". In radio, we never had time to be "journailists", because "news" was happening all around all the time. The wreck that had traffic backed up for miles on the interstate may not have the same importance as the "gun show loophole" bill, but it is more immediately important, because it affects how people get home from work. "Journalists", those self-righteous TV and print rodents who see themsevles as the saviors of the world, do have the time and column space to deal with more important stories than the house fire at 5th and Elm, but unfortunately they use thier medium to advance their own personal political agendas, or those of their management. Those agendas are overwhelmingly liberal, as anyone with a brain knows. I guess what I'm trying to do here is make sure you don't hold anything against the radio news medium, where the reporting absolutely has to be about what's happening now.
"And even if you believe that journalism is or can be conducted without laying most of the emphasis on the negative (which insinuates that the powers-that-be are insufficiently benevolent or insufficiently powerful), the superficiality of journalism has that inherent effect."
I'm really not sure what you're saying here...remember, I'm a product of the Kentucky public education system! Now, if you're commenting on the emphasis on bad news reporting, as opposed to focusing on the positive, well, that's just the nature of news. Folks have tried a couple of times now to respond to what they believe to be the demands of the public for "good news" programming, only to fall flat on their face. Why is that? Because despite what Joe and Jane Sixpack say they want to hear, "Man Bites Dog" is interesting, while "Man Pets Dog" is not, because it happens thousands of times a day. That's just the nature of news...the negative is more compelling than the positive.
"No, you cannot choose your news stories carefully and avoid an anticonservative perspective; once you decided to be a journalist rather than a nonfiction book writer you have already incorporated a superficial and negative perspective into the very basis of your operation."
Again, I'm not entirely sure what you're saying, but I think you're equating negative and superficial stories with liberalism? Well, yes, liberals are generally negative and superficial, but that doesn't necessarily translate to news stories themselves. Why is a negagive story liberal, per se? Why is a superficial story liberal, per se? Radio stories, because of time constraints, are pretty much always superficial, that is, in 30 seconds you don't have time for much more than who, what, where, when and how. That in itself is neither liberal nor conservative, it's just plain objective.
"Thus a "balanced" journalism which gives equal weight to liberal and conservative perspectives looks "conservative" to the typical journalist--and yet predictably is not conservative enough to optimally predict future historical perspective of presently-current events."
Okay, you had me, then you lost me. Yes, I agree wholeheartedly that balance to a liberal, or even to someone who's used to biased, slanted liberal mainstream reporting, does sound conservative. That's why FNC is getting called a conservative mouthpiece, when it's not. You lost me with your last sentence...
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!