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.
Wholeheartedly agree with your whole reply. I would question the timing of the switch from frank opinion to faux objectivity; it seems to trace back to the 1830s when first the high speed press created the opportunity to mass-market. The editorial page serves the function of "positioning" the rest of the paper as being objective. Before high-speed printing, the editorial page was pretty much the whole paper, in my belief.
If that is so, then I must only assume you wrote this in a big hurry:
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.
However, new age "Truth is relative," has infused academia.
I will give you a case in point. The incident I am about to describe is what made me stop watching virtually all broadcast news.
After the Oklahoma bombing, I was watching the network news and Bryant Gumbel was standing in front of the bomb site. He was wailing about how the "Ultra-Right" wing hates government and this could probably be traced back to Conservatives.
Now, here is the objective fact... some of the building was blown up. Where does Mr. Gumbel's bizarre rantings come in?
The goal of actual REPORTING is to TRY to present the facts in an objective manner. If the journalism classes do not teach this today, than I am not surprised that Journalists in general are held to such a low regard in public opinion.
One of my partners was telling me about how "All truths are different," and he went on for quite a while. I said in some respects he is correct and ultimately he may even BE correct. So I said "In the practical world, we have to proceed with the notion that some things must be taken for truth." I then threw his pack of cigarettes on the ground. I stated that perhaps it was an illusion but for all intents and purposes in the real world, his cigarettes were still on the floor. See my point?
I am dismayed when society at large buys into a psuedo-intellectualization of metaphysical doctrines that interest me. Hollywood Buddhists are a great example. They miss the ENTIRE point of certain philosophical ideals and then squawk on about how wise they are.
Yet I have news for them... the cigarettes are still on the floor!
Did that make sense? I am drunk shovelling so perhaps I am delirious!
I have a question for you. Let's assume for a moment that true objectivity is an impossible goal. Fine. However, as a former member of the engineering community (I.C. layout designer) we also knew that perfection was an impossible goal to achieve. But that didn't keep us from trying to achieve it.
Rather than simply throwing up our hands and saying "since we can't make it perfect, let's try to make it flawed in a particular way" we said "we can't make it perfect, but let's try our very best to make it as close to perfect as we possibly can".
Assuming that true objectivity is impossible is not bad in and of itself. Abadoning the pursuit of true objectivity, however, is a bad thing IMHO.
Then J school has changed a lot since I was there! I would think the liberal educators are the ones who push this attitude about the news. WE were taught that to report the news one HAD to be objective. Opinions of any sort were reserved for the editorial page of a paper.
"If it bleeds, it leads..."
WHAT – a car accident.
WHEN – Tuesday, 09122006, 0720
WHERE – Wilson and Ft. Myer Drive, Arlington, Virginia.
WHY – car ran a red light.
HOW – a car travelling westbound ran a red light and struck a car going southbound.
If that was printed basically like that, you state it would be pretty boring. Probably so. So, where does the angle come in?