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

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.
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.

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.

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.”