Email This to a Friend
News Should Be Neither Fair Nor Balanced
For most of U.S. history, the press has reflected a multitude of voices competing in a freewheeling marketplace of ideas. What's wrong with that?
When Fox News Channel was launched promising news that was “fair and balanced,” mainstream outlets were insulted by the insinuation that their news wasn’t.
They shouldn’t have been. In fact, “fair and balanced” news is a bad idea that was never in our past and will not be in our future.
Before the printing press was invented, news was spread by word-of-mouth, so everyone had the opportunity to influence the top stories. Even governments had to compete, sometimes by hiring singing, colorfully-garbed minstrels to break through the clutter. A pretty good system, really — a multitude of voices competing in a freewheeling marketplace of ideas, with individuals deciding for themselves whom to listen to and what to believe. But, fair and balanced? No.
Things did not improve with the invention of the printing press. The large size of printing presses made them difficult to conceal. This made it easy for governments to track down and pressure those who might be printing content that was critical of their actions. Thus began centuries of governments chilling free expression through a variety of legal mechanisms — e.g. issuance and revocation of licenses to publish, requiring approval prior to publication, censorship, and punishments as severe as the death penalty. A formula for fair and balanced news? Ha!
Fast-forward to the years immediately preceding the American Revolution, when Colonial newspapers started attacking their British governors. A breakthrough occurred when the John Peter Zenger verdict allowed newspapers to criticize public officials if their charges were true, in effect declaring open hunting season on British authorities. And, let’s be honest, my fellow Americans — that series of newspaper-driven kerfuffles that includes the Stamp Act, Townshend Acts, Boston Massacre, and Boston Tea Party was largely much ado about nothing. Sure, the result of these efforts was glorious and historic. But, was the coverage of these events “fair and balanced?” Hardly.
Now let’s go to the aftermath of the American Revolution. Thomas Jefferson sought to establish a nation that featured maximum free expression, with a public allowed to think for themselves and their collective wisdom valued as “the consent of the governed.” He wanted newspapers to support this system by dispersing information and engaging in a process of opinion-driven “attack and defense” — in his view, this was the best and only way to get to the truth, deal with unknowns and unknowables, and absorb the personal preferences of a free people. Jefferson put his money where his mouth was. When his rival, Alexander Hamilton, helped found a newspaper to promote federalist ideas, Jefferson co-founded with James Madison a tremendously unfair and imbalanced newspaper to attack it. In case you missed it, this means that Thomas Jefferson did not believe in fair and balanced news either.
On to the Wilson administration during WWI, when the President used an executive order to establish the now-infamous Creel Committee. Its purpose was to influence public opinion toward supporting U.S. intervention in World War I, and its tactics included fabrications and wire-tapping. Defying Jefferson’s legacy of public debate leading to “consent of the governed,” committee member and the “father of public relations” Edward Bernays remarked that “the essence of democratic society” was the “engineering of consent.” So apparently, we had a President who preferred propaganda to fair and balanced news.
It gets worse. Another propaganda-supporting Creel Committee member was Walter Lippmann, the “father of modern journalism.” As Terry Heaton notes, the insufferable Lippmann didn’t think much of government by the people, siding with those who “have concluded that, because public opinion was unstable, the remedy lay in making government as independent of it as possible.” And, he thought even less of debate, declaring, “we shall advance when we have learned humility; when we have learned to seek the truth, to reveal it and publish it; when we care more for that than for the privilege of arguing about ideas in a fog of uncertainty.” His proposed remedy has become our journalism of today — a rough-and-tumble craft that now falsely presents itself as a scientific profession, claiming to deliver singular truths using objective methods backed by a process of verification. Fairness? Balance? What do they have to do with it? Why settle for that when journalism elites can deliver something even better — true, correct answers in all matters of public policy?
In response, Fox News Channel (FNC) was launched to attract an audience who begged to differ on whether journalism’s center-left voice represents “the truth.” While FNC claims to be “fair and balanced,” in reality it has been designed for those who like news presented in ways palatable to conservatives, and who occasionally get enjoyment from watching their ideas used as a bludgeon against liberal ones. Fair and balanced? No, not really.
So, we’ve gone more than a millennium without fair and balanced news. Perhaps more surprisingly, no one has ever seemed to want it — not even Thomas Jefferson. But then again, why would anyone want middlemen elites deciding for them what is important, while conjuring-up mythical fulcrum points representing middles of arguments? What we really want is not fair and balanced news, but news that reflects our own voices — news that is presented by those who share our worldviews.
But since we all live within a democracy where not everyone shares our worldviews, we’re willing to settle for “fair fights” — a multitude of voices competing in a freewheeling marketplace of ideas. The Internet is the first technology that can deliver that — and, that is the future of news.
Steve Boriss blogs at The Future of News. He works for Washington University in St. Louis, where he is Associate Director of the Center for the Application of Information Technology (CAIT) and teaches a class called “The Future of News.”
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
36 Comments
1. George:I would agree, if the majority of MSM outlets actually HAD different views and agendas. Comparing it to news of old is not correct, as 90% of all of our readily accessible television and print ‘news’ comes from half a dozen corporations owned by a half dozen individuals. In days of yore, there were thousands of various publications owned by thousands of individuals.
If the MSM had varying views I would agree, but 9 out of 10 are constantly telling you: that the earth is in catastrophic shape from human-caused pollution(with no conclusive evidence whatsoever), that Paris Hilton is relevant(when hundreds of missing children in inner cities could possibly be found if they gave that extra 3.5 minutes every half-hour to them), that our troops are completely helpless and inept in Iraq and have made no difference(as its nothing more then Bush’s personal sandbox), and that Barack Obama has ANY semblance of competence or an inkling of a plan for being a president of this country…
We are taking for granted that in this ‘information’ filled world that our ‘news’ must be mostly accurate, when in fact the vast majority of MSN’s ‘investigative reporters’ get most of their facts from the first 5 things that come up in a Google search and the rest from their own personal opinions and those of their network.
Apr 21, 2008 - 7:18 am 2. Steve Boriss:George, Yes. Now think of what is happening on the Internet, and all the new outlets and new voices it is spawning. We are about to re-enter an area of news that is unfair, imbalanced…and better.
Apr 21, 2008 - 8:07 am 3. An Unnecessary Balancing Act? « Stomp The Weasels:[...] various outlets that claim to be “fair and balanced” but have biased coverage. However, Steve Boriss states that news media should not have to walk the fair and balanced tightrope: Before the printing [...]
Apr 21, 2008 - 8:58 am 4. Rich:Sounds about right to me, Wile all the others are to the far left fox is the only one to the right. Maybe that has something to do with them being the #1 watched network.
Apr 21, 2008 - 9:05 am 5. News Is Not Fair Nor Balanced : BigMouthFrog:[...] Pajamas Media by Steve Boriss [...]
Apr 21, 2008 - 9:47 am 6. Ed Wallis:Mr. Boriss, I don’t know your capabilities/intelligence beyond this article, but I consider it a tragedy that someone who throws around words as irresponsibly as you should be in any position of academia to influence young minds.
It’s certainly one thing to speak to public discourse as a fair fight (i.e. a “good” thing) in the USA. But I read nothing from you about journalistic ethics, about gathering and disseminating information and allowing the reader to analyze and decide.
I sense, unfortunately, more of the “journalist-as-meddler” sense in your article, to paraphrase: well, gee, there’s never been fair and balance work in reporting and it’s dumb to even think there ever was, so just keep heaping up all the biases and pumping out your own damn opinion as much as possible until the your side “wins.”
In my opinion, your perspective of journalism is dangerous to our free society.
Apr 21, 2008 - 10:11 am 7. BackwardsBoy:There once was a time when journalism consisted of only five little details; who, what, when, where, and why, with the “why” left mostly to opinion writers.
Apr 21, 2008 - 10:21 am 8. Concerned Citizen:I am all for complete freedom of expression — if we don’t trust what we hear, we can change the channel or click to another site. It should be up to the individual to believe whatever they want to. However, opinion that is put out in the guise of news is not fair to the viewers and in the long run, this will erode the media franchises who choose to ignore this. That kind of dishonesty will be held to task in the blogosphere and viewers who are free to choose will stop consuming these opinions.
The way I see it, there are three kinds of information out there:
NEWS – Just the true facts. Who did what to whom, where, and when. ALL the facts, not just one side of the story, omitting what someone doesn’t want you to hear. Not to be confused with LIES.
Analysis – Facts with a bit of intelligence layered in to try to make sense for the viewer what the news could mean to them and others. You could add why to the NEWS list.
Opinion – Yes, this masquerades as news at many outlets and one of the main reasons the NY Times and other MSM are becoming irrelevant.
The marketplace will work fine to police this as long as bloggers are accorded similar credentials and access as “reporters” and no “licenses” are required.
Long live the internet!
Apr 21, 2008 - 10:22 am 9. G-whiz:Steve, I agree with your basic premise that “fair and balanced” really isn’t what any given “individual” is looking for. But for society as a whole “fair and balanced” should be more Jeffersonian with a multitude of voices chiming in. Fortunately the internet has spawned a revival of competing forces from serious analysis to court jester and all points in between. Collectivism and centralized control in MSM is dying right before our NOT fair and balanced eyes.
To take this information renaissance one step further, through the power of the internet, we are reaping a “fair and balanced” dynamic in education of young and old. Government education no longer maintains a stranglehold on ideas that engineer consent. Viva la revelucion de informacion!
Apr 21, 2008 - 10:39 am 10. Bugs:Long live the Internet, indeed. Finally, a force arises that will restore disorder to the public debate. I wonder if the next “Federalist Papers” will appear on somebody’s blog.
Apr 21, 2008 - 11:01 am 11. Steve Boriss:Ed Wallis,
Thanks for your comments. Actually, I believe so much in letting readers decide that I think readers ought to also be deciding among material not conforming to principles of modern journalism — these principles are less than a century old and violate many of the principles of the founding fathers, particularly Jefferson.
Also, I think the Internet has taught us that modern journalism principles do not really work, as objectivity is impossible and truth is more a job for historians and think-tanks than generalists working under intense time pressure. Moreover, an agreed-to ethical code for journalism does not exist, and the variations that refer to themselves as “ethical codes” do not speak to the real issues. For instance, was the Duke Lacrosse Team entitled to be treated innocent until proven guilty? Should NBC have aired the video of the VA tech sniper? There is no place to turn to answer these very simple questions.
I think we will enjoy a more healthy society when we have a multitude of voices competing in a freewheeling marketplace of ideas rather than a supply chain with the NYT, WaPo, and the AP at one end, and monolithic government-friendly, center-left news that purports to be “the objective, verified truth” on the other.
Apr 21, 2008 - 12:35 pm 12. B Dubya:When Walter Cronkite self determined that he had to share his “higher truth” about Viet Nam, he took American journalism in a new direction and gave it new purpose. With Cronkite, the US journalistas took up the burden of moving forward the great plan of Joseph Stalin, and his successor, Leonid Breshnev, to destroy the healthy, strong underpinning fabric of the American nation. General Giap could not have been more pleased that Walter was able to turn the complete military destruction of the Viet Cong and the NVA in the south into a propaganda victory that led us to abandon Viet Nam and the Vietnamese to the predations of the commies in ‘75.
Apr 21, 2008 - 12:38 pm 13. Geoff:Stop giving me higher truth. Give me the plain truth, or be ready to see your fully paid for asses fail in the marketplace of ideas.
I think this article makes a good point about the fallacy of any “fair and balanced” news media, but I wonder about the practical implications of such a view, given the situation of our culture. As others have pointed out, in a democratic society with an ever increasing multiplicity of voices and ideas, we have to find a way to respect both freedom and integrity when reporting events, or responding to others.
But what about the apathy of the public? Is equal access to propaganda really a solution? As sad as it sounds to say, I think that a majority of Americans would rather be told what “the facts” are than try to find out for themselves. Who has time for absorbing all that information and filtering it? Conservatives and liberals both “spin” the news, and I think the majority of the public is not paying attention to anything except the most superficial details, because they aren’t that invested in discovering the truth of the matter. They would rather, as the article suggests, listen to a voice that reflects their own opinion.
Meanwhile, the internet is simply creating more and more selective sources of information, which results in more and more insular communities, who are convinced that they have the proper take on the news, and never need to go outside of the confines of their perceived reality. This doesn’t seem like a positive step to me, if the goal is to respect both freedom and integrity. In fact, it almost creates a reverse “elitism”, where those of us who read [insert blog name here] know the real story, and can roll our eyes at the “ignorant masses” (who very often are ignorant) who don’t know what we know. And that doesn’t really solve anything.
I don’t know what the solution is, but I know that more isn’t necessarily better.
Apr 21, 2008 - 12:47 pm 14. John Samford:It is both amusing and informative to see a member of the MSM advocate yellow journalism and propaganda as the proper functions of the media.
Apr 21, 2008 - 1:31 pm 15. Doc99:I wonder how the sharholders feel about that?
The author confuses news with commentary, something Keith Overbite does on a regular basis in carrying on in the grand Hearst tradition.
Apr 21, 2008 - 1:36 pm 16. Terry Heaton:Nice job, Steve. As Chris Lasch has written, the rise in the “professionalization” of the press in the U.S. tracks with the decline in citizen participation in the political process. He believed that argument was what was missing in contemporary journalism, and that differs from opinion. In many ways, the blogosphere has made argument available again, and who knows where that will lead?
Many people who don’t like this line of thought point to the ideals of fairness represented in the canons of journalistic ethics, but I don’t view it as an “all or nothing” thing. Adding argument to facts doesn’t necessarily mean tossing out the blessed canons. I will argue, though, that the First Amendment wasn’t written to protect facts, so even the ideals of some of those canons have questionable assumptions.
Apr 21, 2008 - 2:11 pm 17. corporate agenda:isnt it good that 9 major corporations tell us what to think takes the pressure off of free thinking thankyou media- disney, timewarner, bertelsmann, viaccom, and rupert murdock! fight the power corporate propoganda is bull say no to nafta nau stand up and learn your changing world before its too late
Apr 21, 2008 - 2:59 pm 18. Steve Boriss:Doc99, I believe that news and opinion are inseparable. The very act of selecting a story and angle reflects an opinion about what is newsworthy, and usually casts one side as good and the other as on the offensive.
Apr 21, 2008 - 3:00 pm 19. cfbleachers:I suppose I would be perfectly content to have an array of “news” organizations, batting around yesterday’s events, spinning furiously to fit their political construct and editorializing on every issue.
It wouldn’t be all that different from what we have been receiving from the deadwood media, the alphabet networks and their brethren in academia and Hollywood for 40 years, anyway.
However, their propagandizing knows no boundaries. This “boys will be boys” and “your side does it too” moral equivocation is a dog that simply won’t hunt.
The intentional misleading of the public, glaring errors of omission and commission, forging documents, faking photographs,…and the like, these are not “editorializing” or “slanting of opinions”…this is the 40 year long corruption of a public trust.
Again, I would be fine with a fair recitation of the facts, in which all sides can give their worldview interpretation and spin.
However, when the facts are sullied, when the facts are kept hidden, when the facts are fabricated out of whole cloth, when the facts are bastardized to fit leftist politics, …then the duty to inform becomes subverted by the desire to convert, by any means necessary.
Pointing at an historic anecdote about how this was done in 1930, or 1772 is no more persuasive than pointing at how well plantations ran during those years. Perhaps they were successful, but it doesn’t make it right.
Apr 21, 2008 - 3:39 pm 20. uburoisc:Ed Wallis, why do I just know that you toil somewhere as a professor of comuuuuuunication? And why do I suspect that behind your overheated indignation is a guy with a whole wheelbarrow full of petty biases, political grievances, and unfounded options masquerading as sound methodology and dispassionate analysis? The journalism departments are overflowing with progressive sorts who can’t bear to think of themselves as deeply biased, but whose approach to any event, from the selection of the importance of a story to the way the facts are marshaled, is a pure product of a socialist catechism. The MSM has, for years, hid behind Lippmann’s fiction of journalism “above the fray” while churning out decades worth of slanted and tendentious stories, and now the whole project is teetering over. Ed, no one believes it anymore.
Just because the bias is upfront, doesn’t mean that the facts aren’t there or that the piece is somehow unethical. I’ll take an honest, deductive writer who is clear on his premises and sets out to prove his points, over a inductive phony who only pretends to “gather and disseminate information.”
And for someone who claims to appreciate the value of words, your use of the term “tragedy” to describe Mr. Boriss’s employment is inaccurate and lazy. We mostly have journalists to blame when such a fine word as tragedy is applied to everything from a broken leg to the death of a family pet to to a blogger’s opinion on the impartiality of journalism. With such misuse, a potent and sublime word slowly loses all meaning entirely (and with it, the complex set of ideas it designates). Too bad Harold C. Goddard isn’t around to set the comuuuunications majors straight on the matter.
Apr 21, 2008 - 3:41 pm 21. Ed Wallis:SB: “I believe that news and opinion are inseparable.”
This opinion was also shared by Goebbels, if I am not mistaken.
Apr 21, 2008 - 5:30 pm 22. Ed Wallis:Oh my. I overlooked a commment by “uburoisc.” Sir/Madam, I enjoy and value the information available on the internet. That was NOT, though, the topic of this article, as I understood it. Mr. Boriss’ response to me on my first post was decent and informative. Please feel free to keep your personal insults/ad hominems to yourself.
Apr 21, 2008 - 5:36 pm 23. John Moore:I agree. Some other countries (e.g. Mexico, UK) have much richer news media than we do, because they not only have freedom of the press but also diversity of the press.
Rupert Murdoch understood the market value of this, with his international background, and Fox News is the result.
I sympathize with those who think that journalists should strive to be fair and accurate, but it isn’t working out that way. In the US, the journalism profession (especially in academia) is overwhelmingly center-left to hard left. And this is in the mainstream.
But worse than having a “wrong” view is that they are virtually a hive mind – one view prevails. In so many cases, the NYT or WaPo sets the priority of an issue and the acceptable narrative and framing. The rest follow along. This leads to shocking institutionalized bias.
One problem is that the “professionalization” of journalism has resulted in a guild mentality, and in a guild, those who go along with the establishment of the guild do best. They get the awards, the plum jobs. This leads in journalism to a shocking lack of diversity of views, and in some cases, outright censorship and blacklisting.
IMHO, journalists should have education that so that know something real – like science, engineering or law, or other disciplines that are… well… rigorous and require logical thinking. To heck with the J-Schools – they obviously are not doing their job any better than the teacher’s colleges.
Apr 21, 2008 - 5:59 pm 24. Sara Thompson:I remember William Buckley’s show on PBS where he hosted and participated in great debates on issues of the day.
These were professional debates with no propaganda lies and no intolerant potty mouths like we see from commentators today. People had to back up “facts” they tossed about. I could actually listen and decide what made the best sense to me in proposed ideas, solutions and issues.
If there were liberal elitists (marxists) participating in these debates, they did not show their egos and intolerant personalities. They acted like real professionals in their fields. Even at that young age, I knew “conservatives” made more sense than socialists even though I only got to hear conservative intellectual perspectives, ideas and solutions on Buckley’s show! Everything I learned or heard in school, on the news and in newspapers was socialist!
I don’t know how he picked his debaters, but I wish someone who is as brillant and gracious as he would follow in his footsteps.
Apr 21, 2008 - 9:12 pm 25. OmegaPaladin:Steve,
Your view of the news is rather postmodernist. Things actually happen, and a news source can actually report the facts of a situation. Just as a transcript can be accurate or inaccurate, certain opinions are just wrong. If someone stated that Abe Lincoln or FDR endorsed a candidate today, that would be false regardless of the spin. Stating that Ted Kennedy is a US Senator from Massachusetts is a true statement.
It is possible to make a news report of purely true statements. “Israeli official claim that a suicide bombing killed 3 soldiers at a checkpoint earlier today. No group has claimed responsibility for the bombing” Both of these are verifiable true statements. You can choose your source for the context and analysis, but the reporter provides a verifiable, factual summary of the events that occurred.
Blogs use news reports as the standard for true events that aren’t witnessed by the blogger. Only about 5% of blog posts actually report on events seen directly by the blogger.
Apr 21, 2008 - 10:47 pm 26. Ed Wallis:John Moore: What you wrote reminds me of what Bernard Goldberg (sp?) wrote in his book “Bias.” So true (sigh).
Apr 22, 2008 - 12:09 am 27. Steve Boriss:OmegaPaladin,
Apr 22, 2008 - 5:00 am 28. Rubicon:Yes, there are facts. But there are an infinite number of them. The very selection of them by news outlets reveals what they believe to be newsworthy. That is an opinion. Beyond that, as a nation founded on the basis of “consent of the governed,” opinions are actually more important than facts. Modern journalism’s insistence on the sanctity of facts over opinions runs counter to our founding principles.
One of the problems many have, is that it now appears the “news” industry, has become a “generator” of news, not a reporter of it.
Apr 22, 2008 - 6:59 am 29. Al:When news organization create photo’s or stories that fit an agenda, then they are not news organizations, they are propaganda factories intent on selling something.
Fox leans right. However, they compete w/ ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, NPR, CPB, PBS, NYT, & a multitude of others.
So, trying to vilify Fox by claiming all news is unfair, is the pot calling the kettle black, again.
If news is to be delivered based on opinion, then news organizations should be required to admit at the top, they are presenting a story with opinion they subscribe to. At this time, they present news as though these facts are the only facts, that they are true beyond any doubt, and that there is no other position to report, unless its for them to denigrate those who have other opinions.
If “Fair & Balanced is not what the people want, how does one account for the huge viewership of Fox? In addition, why are so many seeking information from the Internet, rather than relying on the old establishment mainstream media?
Ethics and journalism reminded me of several gems. This is one.
New York Daily News – http://www.nydailynews.com
Caught cheatin’ … on ethics test
BY JIMMY VIELKIND and LEO STANDORA
DAILY NEWS WRITERS
Friday, December 1st, 2006
Columbia University officials are lowering the boom on some graduate journalism students suspected of cheating on, of all things, an ethics exam.
The J-schoolers’ alleged lapse on the final was reported yesterday by Radar Online.
The exam in question consisted of two essay questions to be completed in 90 minutes any time during a 36-hour period.
Students who took the test early were instructed to avoid discussing the questions with those planning to take it later, but the warning was ignored.
One honorable young scholar got wind of what happened and blew the whistle, sources said.
Vice Dean David Klatell told students in an e-mail that there had been a “serious problem” with the final and ordered them to attend a special session of the class “Critical Issues in Journalism” today – or fail.
The order applies only to the Friday morning section. The evening section is exempt.
It was unclear how many students could be affected.
The course, which includes such issues as “Why be Ethical?” and “Tribal Loyalty vs. Journalistic Obligation,” is taught by New York Times columnist Samuel G. Freedman, who could not be reached yesterday.
One source said of the special session, “It’s an ‘Out yourself or you’ll all have to suffer’ situation.”
A Columbia spokesman confirmed Klatell had fired off the e-mail, but did not release details about the “problem.”
Apr 23, 2008 - 9:37 pm 30. tanstaafl:For most of my life, the standard of ethics in reporting “the news” dictated that personal opinions and agendas be kept out in the telling of the story.
Even the (today) highly vociferous and hugely opinionated Walter Cronkite held to that standard when he delivered his nightly report. All of his cronies in the business did, as well.
One of the reasons network news, newspapers (and to some extent, news magazines) are declining is that that standard has been thrown in the trash. The ways you can influence “the news” are myriad and subtle and go way beyond the simple writing itself. The choice of which stories see the light of day, the choice of wording in the headlines…on and on.
As a J-school grad today, you probably would not even be hired on if you lacked the appropriate political leanings and beliefs. Unless, of course, you were hired as the “token” for the other side.
Some newspapers have gone so far as to actively promote a single political candidate in the current election cycle.
Then there are the writers “making up” the news whose writing gets into respectable (or reasonably respectable) publications. Jayson Blair at the NYTimes, Scott Beauchamp at TNR. Such cases make it hard to believe anything one sees in print, anywhere.
So much for the fruits of agendized reportage.
Fox News’ insistence on “fair and balanced” gets a little tedious. If the fairness and the balance are there, “people” will notice without it having to be constantly emphasized and touted.
While the 24 hour news cycle has helped turn “politics” into a sideshow.
Apr 24, 2008 - 7:29 am 31. OLDPUPPYMAX:Nothing wrong with it. As long as the media outlet does not improperly represent itself as a nonbiased source of facts and truth when its agenda leaps from the page or screen. If you are pro left, state it in no uncertain terms and have at it. It is conning the ignorant which is dangerous to the American people.
Apr 26, 2008 - 8:14 am 32. James:Very good article. I only watch Fox news and yes I enjoy watching the right beat up on the left in the idea department, it’s a refreshing change frome the liberal media.
Apr 27, 2008 - 9:29 am 33. Jake:Even as Fox’s mantra was probably meant to tweak the MSM about its political bias, it works just as well as a method for promoting product quality. Even in a new world where journalistic bias is out in the open, don’t we expect at least a modicum of “fairness”, and isn’t it the case that offering the counter argument is a good way to convince readers/viewers that your position is superior?
May 4, 2008 - 8:27 am 34. conservatism_IS_compassion:Right leaning Fox may not be shy about choosing its subject matter in a way that promotes its political agenda, but I find their news superior because they tend not to ambush guests and they certainly give more time to opposing views than do their competitors.
SB: “I believe that news and opinion are inseparable.”
Ed Wallis:”This opinion was also shared by Goebbels, if I am not mistaken.”
I propose a definition of “subjectivity” – it is the belief in one’s own objectivity. That is, the moment you claim to be objective is when you fail to discount what you want to believe in you evaluation of what is true.
Thus, if I make a good-faith attempt at objectivity the very first thing I will consider is that I want to believe that the Constitution is a superb framework as it was designed, and that the amendments to it are, for the most part, good. If there is evidence to the contrary, I have some obligation to give it a serious hearing. Until and unless I learn that the person putting forth the evidence is not doing so in good faith.
There is IMHO a difference between Goebbels’s attitude that Goebbels has a right to his own facts, and Steve’s point that opinion precedes the choice of facts which you, or I, or Goebbels or Steve, elect to discuss. That is not a justification for making things up, to the contrary it is the admission that the facts I choose to present to buttress my argument are not the only facts in all of history. Being willing to admit the possibility that other facts than those I selected could have bearing on the issue at hand is humility. Making up “facts” to suit the argument of the moment is arrogance.
Claiming to be wise, and arguing from that assumption, is sophistry. Refusing to claim to be wise, but only claiming to love wisdom (and thus to be willing to listen to facts and logic as propounded by others) is philosophy. IMHO there is not a dime’s worth of difference between arguing from the assumption of your own wisdom and arguing from the assumption of your own objectivity.
May 4, 2008 - 4:33 pm 35. George Colony:Journalists have a financial/business reason to interest the public, but interesting the public is not identically the same as the public interest. The public is interested in learning the government’s secrets – but the public interest may be very ill-served by the disclosure of our military’s plans and activities.
A large set of people in society require facts to make judgments about politicians, personal health decisions, buying decisions, how they will build their world view. When news becomes purely subjective, it loses value for this community.
While Fox and The Daily Show and their ilk will always be popular, they do not satisfy the public’s thirst for an accurate and unbiased accounting of the facts. And that public will not have time in the future to triangulate hundreds of bloggers to arrive at, “…what really happened.”
George Colony
May 15, 2008 - 12:59 pm 36. Rick:This misconception that FOX is the only news access right of center is quite humorous. Why are we now almost six years into the war in Iraq finally hearing that, to all of our surprise this war is all about oil? Left or right one could see early on that this was the case but the revenge aspect, the replacing of a tyrant, the finding those weapons of mass destruction that our President Bush couldn’t seem to find under the desk in his office ha ha, all masked what we all really knew down deep. This war was all about oil and pretty much nothing else. The war in Afghanistan is also about oil and the pipeline which the administration tried to pay, none other than the Taliban, to allow us to put it accross their country. There is no left in the news. It is center at best and by the time Walter Cronkite pronounced we had lost Vietnan, we had already lost Vietnam. Not really as brave and as daring as he is given credit for.
Jul 22, 2008 - 2:08 pm