Posted on 12/15/2014 7:53:58 AM PST by Kaslin
JOURNALISTS, SAYS Jorge Ramos, shouldn't make a fetish of accuracy and impartiality.
Speaking last month at the International Press Freedom Awards, Univision's influential news anchor told his audience that while he has "nothing against objectivity," journalism is meant to be wielded as "a weapon for a higher purpose: justice." To be sure, he said, it is important to get the facts right — five deaths should be reported as five, not six or seven. But "the best of journalism happens when we, purposely, stop pretending that we are neutral and recognize that we have a moral obligation to tell truth to power."
As it happens, Ramos delivered those remarks soon after the publication of Sabrina Erdely's 9,000-word story in Rolling Stone vividly describing the alleged gang rape of a freshman named Jackie at a University of Virginia fraternity party. Erdely had reportedly spent months researching the story, and its explosive impact was — at first — everything a tell-truth-to-power journalist could have wished: national attention, public outrage, campus protests, suspension of UVA's fraternities, and a new "zero-tolerance" policy on sexual assault.
But Rolling Stone's blockbuster has imploded, undone by independent reporting at The Washington Post that found glaring contradictions and irregularities with the story, and egregious failures in the way it was written and edited. Erdely, it turns out, had taken Jackie's horrific accusations on faith, never contacting the alleged rapists for a comment or response. In a rueful "Note to Our Readers," managing editor Will Dana writes: "[W]e have come to the conclusion … that the truth would have been better served by getting the other side of the story."
To a layman, that "conclusion" might seem so excruciatingly self-evident that Rolling Stone's debacle can only be explained as gross negligence, or a reckless disregard for the truth. But much of the journalistic priesthood holds to a different standard, one that elevates the higher truth of an overarching "narrative" — in this case, that a brutal and callous "rape culture" pervades American college campuses — above the mundane details of fact. Erdely had set out in search of a grim sexual-assault story, and settled on Jackie's account of being savaged by five men (or was it seven?) at a fraternity bash was just the vehicle she'd been looking for. Why get tangled in conflicting particulars?
"Maybe [Erdely] was too credulous," suggests longtime media critic Howard Kurtz in a piece on Rolling Stone's journalistic train wreck. "Along with her editors."
Or maybe this is what happens when newsrooms and journalism schools decide, like Jorge Ramos, that although they have "nothing against objectivity," their real aspiration is to use journalism "as a weapon for a higher purpose." Somehow it didn't come as a shock to learn that when Dana was invited to lecture at Middlebury College in 2006, his speech was titled: "A Defense of Biased Reporting."
Even after the UVA story began to collapse, voices were raised in defense of the narrative over mere fact.
"This is not to say that it does not matter whether or not Jackie's story is accurate," Julia Horowitz, an assistant managing editor at the University of Virginia's student newspaper, wrote in Politico. But "to let fact checking define the narrative would be a huge mistake."
Well, if the "narrative" is what matters most, checking the facts too closely can indeed be a huge mistake. Because facts, those stubborn things, have a tendency to undermine cherished narratives — particularly narratives grounded in emotionalism, memory, or ideology.
It's a temptation to which journalists have always been susceptible. In the 1930s, to mention one notorious example, Walter Duranty recycled Soviet propaganda, assuring his New York Times readers that no mass murders were occurring under Stalin's humane and enlightened rule. Duranty is reviled today. But the willingness to subordinate a passion for accuracy to a supposedly higher passion for "justice" (or "equality" or "fairness" or "diversity" or "peace" or "the environment") persists.
Has the time come to give up on the ideal of objective, unbiased journalism? Would media bias openly acknowledged be an improvement over news media that only pretend not to take sides?
This much is clear: The public isn't deceived. Trust in the media has been drifting downward for years. According to Gallup, Americans' confidence that news is being reported "fully, accurately, and fairly" reached an all-time low this year. Would you be astonished to see that number sink even further next year? Me neither.
Nothing against objectivity. Some of their best friends are objective, I’m sure. They probably even have relatives that are objective.
Ramos the Mexican citizen?
The acolyte of Fidel Castro, the Spanish hegemonist determined to take back the land from the Anglos?
That Jorge Ramos?
He would have served Stalin or Castro well as a loyal propagandist. At least he put the world on notice never to believe anything he says or writes. There are many like him.
Well, it seems to me he contradicts himself. If 5 is the correct number rather than seven and should be reported as such, why wouldn’t 0 be the correct number that should be reported in the Jackie case? Oh, that’s right, there’s no story when 0 is the number.
Journalism, like Elvis, left the building years ago.
He IS Castro’s propagandist.
He hates America and the Americans, yet we allow him onshore and on our airwaves.
Here’s a “narrative.” There are evil people trying to “fundamentally transform” the United States of America by taking away our freedom and our property. One of their “weapons” is biased and lying journalism. Back at ya, Jorge.
Most “journalists” wouldn’t recognize Truth if they met at a cocktail party.
They’re not smart enough to recognize, or critical enough to question, orthodoxy.
I thought journalists are supposed to be news “reporters”, not news “creators”.
...unless we happen to agree with, or are being paid off by the power, in which case it's just peachy. This is exactly what we saw in most of Obama's first term.
“that we have a moral obligation to tell truth to power.”
Isn’t this some line from the Daily Show?
And since when do these jokers ever stand up to Obama and his “power”?
When ‘Justice’ Trumps Accuracy, Journalism Loses
s/b
When ‘Justice’ Trumps Accuracy, Justice Loses
Of course they can make stuff up, "its the seriousness of the charge, not the reality" But maybe the next R Admin will stand up and fight back with facts. Similar to what Cheney did on Meet the Press, yesterday. Why didn't they let him do that under Bush, with all the spurious charges?
Duranty won a pulitzer for his lies... and killings.
Let me get this straight - IF conservatives attended an event covered by journalists we could call the police and tell them 'such and such' journalist tried to molest our three-year-old daughter? And it would be ethically acceptable BECAUSE the MSM is 'bad' in our narrative?
God, these people are evil... eff the New York Times... and Jorge Ramos with him.
Anyone know of a Hispanic country that's NOT known as a corrupt hellhole run by a small group of thugs?
Nope. That's the culture - The Beeg Man and his gang show everyone else how powerful they are by being more vicious then everyone else, including lying at every opportunity.
Shows that you'll do what it takes to get power, therefore you deserve it.
Ramos aspires to this. He thinks we're all little cherry weaklings, easy pickins. And the Left aids and abets him with the Mexicans as Victims narrative - like looters in Ferguson, it would be wicked to stop them from getting their revenge against the Evil Anglos who tooks ahr lahnd!.
Diversity is our Downfall.
And, as far as I know, the New York Times still holds that Pulitzer in his name. They’ve never disavowed that “honor”.
Liberal elites don't get it - if our culture's overwhelmed by people who believe 'toughest goon wins' OUR country will become a South American thug-run hellhole.
Jorge Ramos doesn't like 'old country' culture because he wasn't 'in'... Ramos is attempting to recreate the South American criminal cultures he and millions of others escaped from... but with a twist. This time they want to be on top.
Americans originally thought these people yearned to be free - but what they wanted was to recreate criminal cultures - with themselves on top. No ILLEGALS with delusions of cultures from hell... stop them - stop illegals...
Ay-Yup.
All I can say.
Couldn’t get passed the first paragraph. Total barf!
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.