Are journalists to go about their personal lives unbiased in everything they say and do? I can understand if they're 'righting' (smile) columns on specific news events, but outside of work, shouldn't they have the same rights as we all do?
Excellent question. The answer is that any reporter has "freedom of speech, and of the press." The only issue is whether you and I are credulous when journalists claim to to be objective when speaking "ex cathedra."I remember Scalia saying that Catholics who didn't believe in capital punishment shouldn't be on the Supreme Court because of their beliefs on Capital Punishment. Wasn't that a personal opinion?
See, the issue is whether you think anyone is authorized to argue from the assumption that they are objective (or wise, or moderate, or any other virtue). IMHO no mortal is.The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing . . . It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. - Adam SmithWhenever someone claims or insinuates that I am obligated to believe them, my response is to quote Adam Smith - and to joke, "I was born at night - but it wasn't last night!"Objectivity - absence of bias - is at best an unprovable negative. But to state that some statement could not be proved true whether or not it actually was true is no guarantee that the statement actually is true - it may even be possible to prove that it is false.
Journalism has well-known business imperatives. One is that journalists have to make their deadlines. Why? Because - in actual fact - "the show must go on." That is, journalism has an entertainment function which it has to meet to make money. Likewise, "'Man Bites Dog' rather than 'Dog Bites Man'" - that's an entertainment imperative having nothing to do with whether a story is objectively significant.
But the biggie is, "If it bleeds, it leads." That causes journalism to be systematically negative. For example, reporters will argue that the news from Iraq is bad, with the implication that the sky is falling and we have to withdraw from Iraq before we are all killed. But if someone objects, "there are good things happening in Iraq," the answer is that good news "isn't news" - does not get reported. And then the reporters return to the argument that the news from Iraq is all bad and the sky is falling and we have to withdraw from Iraq before we are all killed.
Bottom line: journalism argues from the assumption that what is good for their business is in the public interest. In fact of course, what's good for their business - wars, natural disasters, etc - is precisely what is not in the public interest. Freedom of the press is in the public interest - the Constitution is the public interest, and the First Amendment is part of it - but Adam Smith's "incredulity" is also in the public interest.
So Ms. Greenhouse can announce that she's a liberal - I think that is all to the good. If that will inspire "incredulity" in her audience it will be a service to the Republic.
BTTT