177 Comments

1. Lola:

Err . . . this is Friday, not Saturday, as you reported. That means you made an incorrect statement, and I corrected you by way of looking at the calendar issued by my company (or you can check your computer clock).

That’s what “fair and balanced” means – getting the facts correct, even if the facts may invoke a negative response in certain quarters. The facts should also be backed up and be able to hold its own in court, so to speak.

May 27, 2005 - 7:23 am 2. Knucklehead:

Dangit, Lola, I wanted to be the one to clue Roger in to the proper day of the week!

As for fair and balanced… following the info where it leads rather than cherry picking what supports the conclusion you want to reach, acknowledging valid arguments and inconvenient facts, openly correcting mistakes (not burying the errata reporting on page 12).

May 27, 2005 - 7:29 am 3. Roger:

Heh… This is what insomnia can lead to – you don’t even know what day it is. Seriously, I was in the midst of making the above correction while the two previous commenters were correcting me. That’s how fast blogs work. You’ve got to tell the truth (assuming you know it) or you’re dead.

May 27, 2005 - 7:35 am 4. Silicon valley Jim:

Proper sourcing, including disclosure of sources if it can be done, is important, although it may go more to the point of responsibility rather than fairness and balance. There can be disagreement as to what proper sourcing means, but, as in science, extraordinary conclusions require extraordinary evidence.

The selection of stories to cover is, I think, a very important attribute of fairness and balance. It was, of course, irresponsible of Newsweek to report the allegations of flushing Korans down the toilet, given that their sources stunk. The same goes for CBS’s airing of the fraudulent TANG memoranda last summer. In both cases, however, I suspect strongly that similar stories casting the Iraqi terrorists or John Kerry in a bad light would not have seen the light of day.

The third thing that occurs to me is that a fair and balanced person admits that he is wrong when he is, and does not propagate allegations that have been proven to be false. The recent reporting that Alberto Gonzales had accused Priscilla Owens, while both were justices of Texas’s Supreme Court, of “unconscionable judicial activism” is a good example of the latter. It has repeatedly been shown that Gonzales’s remarks were directed to two other dissenting justices in the case, and Attorney General Gonzales said last week that that was the case, but major media were repeating the untruth this week. CBS’s behavior with regard to the fraudulent TANG memoranda is a good example of the former.

I’m still looking in my concordance for the proverb that references pajamas, by the way

May 27, 2005 - 7:35 am 5. Jamie Irons:

Roger,

As long as you agree with my prejudices — right of center on national security, left of center on most other matters, very conservative (i.e. rigorous) on education — that will be fair enough, and balanced, from my point of view…

But seriously, folks…

I think the fact that you are signing up such a variety of blogs should more or less automatically address this issue.

Jamie Irons

May 27, 2005 - 7:42 am 6. UML Guy:

Actually, Roger, you’ve just demonstrated three of the five main tenets of “fair and balanced” when it comes to the blogs:

1. DON’T erase your mistakes.

2. DO open yourself up to commenters who can point out your mistakes.

3. DO post updates that correct your mistakes. Make them visible and clear in such a way that nobody can miss them; but going back to 1, leave your mistakes visible (but corrected).

These three tenets let your readers and commenters participate in balancing any mistakes you might make. The old media has shown that even those with good intentions have a hard time attaining balance when they come from a single viewpoint. Balance comes from the debate, not the individual.

And the last two tenets, as I see them:

4. Link to your sources, so readers can judge for themselves. If you’re doing original reporting and are thus your own source, make all of your research and reporting material available for public review. If there’s something sensitive that you can’t make public, then don’t report it.

5. Admit that you could be wrong, and link to reasonable, responsible opposing views.

May 27, 2005 - 7:43 am 7. richard mcenroe:

The first and only unbreakable rule: Approach every story with the question, “What are the facts?” rather than “How does this affect my position on/my candidate’s position on/my party’s position on/ ad nauseum…”

May 27, 2005 - 7:46 am 8. Lola:

About #4 – I think this is going to be one of the bigger issues that PajamaMedia will have to deal with. What if the source contains important facts that puts the story into proper content, but is top secret (whether it is a private company that deems it a top trade secret, or something that could impact the national security of country X)? How is one going to handle that source?

May 27, 2005 - 7:48 am 9. Sun-Tzu:

Be disinterested.

Seek to inform.

There are no “winners” from your perspective.

The problem, I suspect, w/ much of the media, and why “fair and balanced” is so laughable when they try to appropriate it, is that the media appears to have chosen sides.

Their stories are selected and presented in order to influence, so that their “side” can “win.” That’s advocacy, and it distorts as much as it informs.

When you figure that your side is right, of course, then you can afford to vilify, slant, or under-cover the “opposition.” And since the aim isn’t to inform but to influence, isn’t to tell what happened but to persuade you why you should have such-and-such view, then that’s all good.

The old newspaper approach was to tell the who, what, where, when, and why, up-front and foremost. Ideally, you “won” when you left your reader w/ more information than they came in w/, but they could make up their own minds as to what those facts meant.

Who “should” win, who you “should” support was supposed to remain in the op-ed pages.

So, I’d echo the idea the sentiments above about openness, about avoiding cherry-picking. I’d also keep an eye on your own mistakes. When the mistakes always seem to favor one side, I’d suggest that it’s a pretty good sign that you’re veering off the straight-and-narrow.

Just a few thoughts….

May 27, 2005 - 7:51 am 10. Piranha:

The question is, who is watching the guardians? The answer, I think is threefold:

(a) the bloggers themselves (and I agree with Jamie that the large number of blogs that you sign up will guide the invisible hand toward the truth.

(b) the readers. I hope that you encourage your bloggers to permit comments on their websites. I have a philosophical problem with one highly-read blog that does not permit comments. Although the blogger answers e-mails incredibly fast, it seems to me that this is an opacity in an otherwise transparent process, and one that I hope he will fix.

(c) the critics in the legacy media and elsewhere, who will pore over (sounds like a skin disease) your constitutent blogs and search for bias, inconsistencies, omissions and errors. If you continue to accept these criticisms openly and post corrections or emendations promptly, this will highlight the strength of the weblog revolution.

All of those points are subcategories of transparency. I think that your policy of posting the complete text of important documents represents a fundamental break with traditional journalism — imagine if they would post their reporters’ notes! By posting prooftexts, you let critics (and I use that word in a positive sense) deconstruct and reconstruct the information that you publish. This is the best mechanism for keeping you fair and balanced.

In my opinion, the importance of what you are doing cannot be underestimated. Best wishes to all of you.

May 27, 2005 - 7:53 am 11. UML Guy:

Lola,

I agree with the concern. My first rule has to be: “If you can’t disclose it, don’t report it. If that means the rest of the story falls apart, then don’t post the story.” I know this will lead to some really tough decisions; but I think it’s going to be extremely important for new media to protect and cultivate trust and credibility. Old media were once trusted to conceal facts and rely on anonymous sources, and they abused that trust. And new media rightly called them on the carpet for it. So now I expect old media to hold new media to an even higher standard, just out of a sense of turf protection. New media have to be ready to be pilloried for even the most minor missteps, until they earn a measure of widespread trust.

If a new media person has a story that just MUST get out but can’t reveal sources, I recommend that he or she leak it to an old media outlet. I just don’t think new media can afford (for now) the criticism that will come if they get it wrong.

May 27, 2005 - 7:55 am 12. thibaud:

What does “fair and balanced” mean anyway?

A few quick thoughts:

1) Intellectual honesty. As applied to journalism this means, at a minimum, clearly separating opinion from straight reporting; straight reporting entails recognition of multiple possible interpretations and an honest effort to provide context.

2) Respect for the readers’ intelligence. Avoid weasel words and cant. Speak to the readers the way you would speak to a colleague or a good friend, with neither spin nor condescension.

Beyond the above points, you should recognize that being “fair and balanced” is not just an editorial but a business decision, one that will determine which markets you compete in, which readers you target, how you organize and deliver your content, and not least, who chooses to advertise with you.

Specifically, if you’re really after balance and fairness, then your main competitors will be AP and the other wire services, not Kos or Huffnpuff. You’ll have to compete on the breadth of your offerings – geographic, topical etc – and also, I’d guess, on your technology, ie your GIU and more generally a user experience that’s superior to what Yahoo and other purveyors of wire service articles can offer. I’d guess the technology would be the main differentiator here.

OTOH one can make a good argument – Bill Keller’s done so – for eschewing balance and giving your core what it wants, ie seeking to build a rather partisan, extremely loyal following. There’s a trade-off between objectivity and intensity: the more you strive to be objective, the less passionate your following will be. You may get more eyeballs but each will visit less often, and read less of your content, and spend less time when they do visit.

If I were an advertiser, I’d probably opt for the intensely loyal, high usage, very well-defined market – regardless of how narrow it is. After all, your market’s minuscule to begin with, at least compared to those of Yahoo, the networks, even the Grey Lady. The types of companies that would advertise to such a small market are likely to be either geographically based or else outliers with a very well defined brand image and product offering focused on narrow niche markets: Prius. W Hotels. Regis Publishing. Cessna Aircraft. Luxury Bicycle Tours.

May 27, 2005 - 7:57 am 13. thibaud:

correction: GUI, not GIU. Graphical User Interface. For example, changing the color and tonal scheme of rogerlsimon.com from Mordant Gray to a warm, reddish or ochre base that would show the site’s author as the same tanned, energetic angeleno that appears on television from time to time

May 27, 2005 - 8:00 am 14. Keith_Indy:

I would go more for the “honest and accurate,” rather than the “fair and balanced” angle.

We all have our own biases, and interests. Why not acknowledge that up front. As long as I know reporter X is a rabid anti-military, I can take that persons reporting on the military with a huge grain of salt.

The things I hate most about the mainstream media:

A) Presenting only the facts that support a particular conclusion. Especially when it comes to politically charged issues. I want to see the evidence that contradicts the conclusion, and why it isn’t considered in the conclusion.

B) Being selective about what stories are important, and what is not. We never know what is going to be important.

C) Reporting about innuendo and gossip as if they were facts.

D) Reporting that goes along the lines of, we aren’t calling them fascists, their opponents are, and we’re only reporting. Character assassination has no place in serious journalism.

E) Reprinting the distortions of history, or ignoring the history of a subject. The blatant hypocracy of many political figures comes to mind here.

**********

As Grissom on CSI always says “Follow the evidence” Good words to follow for any investigative reporter. Let the evidence determine the conclusions.

May 27, 2005 - 8:07 am 15. Porkopolis:

Not Fair and Balanced: Narrow Beam from a flashlight

Fair and Balanced: Wide illuminating light from a lantern

May 27, 2005 - 8:08 am 16. Rick Ballard:

Fair and balanced wrt web based media is going to mean linkage to complete source documentation – transcripts, PDFs of original docs (as you have already done), complete reproduction of entire interviews without “selective editing” – you might call it ’sunshine reporting’. Right now the Federal Government is actually doing the best job in presenting complete data – aside from cloakroom deals and the actual purchase and rental agreements that pols enter into.

A new media report can be considered fair and balance when it presents a clear synopsis of events with adequate documentation. Propaganda media has always justified the filters used in reporting due to space and time limitations. New media is unbounded by those constraints and will crush propaganda media as awareness spreads that new media is unfiltered.

It must be recognized that new media will be biased in story selection but bias in the synopsis report will be identified quickly and openly – if a comments section exists.

I’m beginning to think that “The People’s Media” may be the most apt description of new media. Given your youthful activities (up until the last week or so) Roger, I would think that you might have a preference for the term “The People’s Media”. Thank you for your efforts in joining in the creation of a democratic medium.

May 27, 2005 - 8:12 am 17. Canucklehead:

Rather than using the “fair and balanced” moniker, you should consider the “We use tests of reasonableness… you decide” moniker.

Echoing Jamie Iron’s point, convergence of “opinion” will flesh out the truth of the matter. A blogger’s credibility revolves around their analysis of the issue… hence you can’t be balanced. The blogger is opinionated about the issue. They aren’t “fair” as they point out the unreasonable positions taken on the issue they analyze.

May 27, 2005 - 8:19 am 18. DeliLama:

I don’t think it’s possible to remain fair and balanced except by adhering to the rules UML Guy said. Only a free and open marketplace of ideas will prevent sliding into MSMhood.

1) Make it as easy as possible for others to comment on ALL of the material and for everyone to see the comments.

2) Always praise people publicly (regardless of who they are) for correcting factual errors (regardless of how embarrassing they are) or providing key new insights (regardless of how much you dislike it).

3) In running a bank*, the single most important method of reducing fraud is to have standardized procedures and policies. The blog should have these for all situations. If something new comes up, decide the best course of action and add it to the list.

* http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1557387923/qid=1117207280/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-9358729-2303812?v=glance&s=books

May 27, 2005 - 8:22 am 19. reel cobra:

A writer cannot “be fair and balanced”.

A writer can only attempt to be that.

That means filtering information when reading, and attempting to advance equal portions of the two sides to a proposition, in writing about it.

In the case of an event it is possible to try to be fair and balanced by reporting as accurately as possible about what happened during that event, and covering the reaction to it.

But “accuracy” is not the same as “fair and balanced”.

In my opinion f&b (getting tired of writing the phrase) comes from a reader looking at multiple sources covering a single event or topic, and the job of the reader as opposed to the writer is to evaluate the information in an f&b way.

I thought the Filibuster deal was good, and that it might create a center that could get things done in the Senate.

I was wrong. I was a sucker. So I try to be fair and balanced in what I learned.

http://reelcobra.blogspot.com/2005/05/filibuster-battle-bonus-3-it-proves.html

May 27, 2005 - 8:28 am 20. Bostonian:

People who claim to be “fair and balanced” would have everyone believe that they’re somehow in the magic middle. Such a thing might exist, but it’s a war zone.

I agree with Keith I.: strive instead for honesty and accuracy.

***

One of my biggest gripes about the MSM is not the stories they choose to cover, or even their numerous fictions. It is the fact that they do not accurately report what conservatives & Republicans actually say for themselves. Surely it isn’t difficult to repeat a person’s own words with attribution. But no, they’ve got to select the words they want, omit words that provide context, and “interpret” freely–anything to keep those voices silent.

May 27, 2005 - 8:30 am 21. opine6:

1. As Sgt. Joe Friday said, “Just the facts, Ma’am.”

2. Any “source” alluded to must be identified, or the information is not used in the story.

3. Or, if the “source” is not identified, a disclaimer that first-hand verification of the information was not obtained. This lets the reader make their own determination about whether the information is credible.

May 27, 2005 - 8:31 am 22. badmonkey:

Your question begs clarification of context. Are we speaking of “F&B” as it pertains to a single blogger or P.J.M. as a whole? I’m sure you must mean P.J.M in total since I think most would agree that a single blogger can not be “F&B” all the time. It is humanly impossible. So, on a whole, it would take a large team of completely unbiased people working full time to monitor each blog affiliated with P.J.M to ensure that there was an equal number of opposing viewpoints at all times. Of course you then have to address the issue of the quality of content. You have blogs like LGF and Instapundit which have insightful, knowledgeable, and thoughtful content, while, in contrast, you have blogs filled with hate, ignorance and stupidity, such as Daily Kos and Wonkette (See how my opinion is totally F&B . In conclusion: I believe “Fair and Balanced” is an unattainable ideal.

I would have to agree with Kieth_Indy…

“honest and accurate”

May 27, 2005 - 8:31 am 23. Moonage:

Simple but great question.  I posted my thoughts

here.

Trackbacks sure would be nice here.  If you want input from the

blogosphere, trackbacks would be the best way to go.

Moon

May 27, 2005 - 8:32 am 24. byrd:

“Fair” is pretty simple and straightforward (in defining, not necessarily acheiving) and I think people here have done a good job of spelling it out.

“Balanced” is a silly and unattainable goal. You can’t report everything, you have to make choices about what to leave out. Those choices are going to be unavoidably influenced by your own priorities. If your priorites mesh exactly with a particular reader’s priorities, then, for that reader, you are balanced. For other readers, you won’t be.

And until the day that all readers have exactly the same priorities, most are not going to see you as balanced. Who cares? Do what you can and let someone else facing the same situaiton but with different priorities do it differently.

My job as reader is to pick from the buffet of blogs a plate that satisfies my own sense of balance. If my plate is unbalanced, it’s at least partly my fault.

May 27, 2005 - 8:33 am 25. Keith_Indy:

Great comments from everyone.

Cherry picking, another sin of the MSM. Not only of sources, but especially with quotes from officials.

With the amount of verbage that goes on in press briefings, doesn’t anyone find it odd that the most an offical will be quoted is a few select words, within the reporters own retelling of what was “really” meant.

Another thing I hate, “scare” quotes. Take this for instance:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=5&u=/ap/20050527/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/guantanamo_quran

Investigators have confirmed five cases in which military personnel mishandled the Qurans of Muslim prisoners at Guantanamo Bay since 2002, but they have found no “credible evidence” that a holy book was flushed in a toilet.

*************

Now, are we to assume that “credible evidence” was a quote from an offical, or is the reporter using scare quotes. Meaning the officials said there was no credible evidence, but that the reporter doesn’t believe it. They even do the same thing in the headline.

“Five Cases of Quran ‘Mishandling’ Found”

and later in the article or is that story???

The prisoner did not specifically recant his earlier allegation; Hood said the prisoner was not asked in the May 14 interview whether he had made the specific statement in 2002 as reported by the FBI. Instead he was asked more broadly whether he had seen the Quran “defiled, desecrated or mishandled.”

“He allowed as how he hadn’t, but he heard that guards at some other point in time had done this,” Hood said, adding that this allegation from the 2002 FBI report was the only one Hood found that involved a toilet.

**********

I saw part of this exchange on C-SPAN. The reporter went on and on about this, whether the prisoner was asked specifically about the Koran and the toilet. Now, I would consider putting the Bible in a toilet, to be defiling, descration and mishandling of that Holy Book.

Talk about stretching the evidence to fit your agenda. The reporter wants to play GOTCHA, you didn’t ask the right question so therefore the answer is invalid. While to the average person, the prisoner recanted his earler statements would be sufficient, to this reporter it must seem as not having asked specific questions is some evidence of vagueness.

May 27, 2005 - 8:36 am 26. Purple Fury:

I think you can look at the question from a theoretical perspective and a practical one. I’ll address the practical view:

“Fair and balanced”, to me, means:

A recognition that on most issues, there are two, and possibly three, principal viewpoints. There can be more than than that, but there are usually two or three “big picture” perspectives.

A fair and balanced treatment of of an issue implies either:

1. Acknowledgement of which perspective the reporter is operating from, or

2. A good faith attempt to present both (or all three) viewpoints.

More simply: either fess up who you’re shilling for, or present all sides of the issue.

May 27, 2005 - 8:37 am 27. badmonkey:

Michael Yon has a great commentary on why lazy journalism causes unbalanced reporting…

http://www.michaelyo...

May 27, 2005 - 8:41 am 28. Jim in Texas:

“Fair”

Never write anything that you would not want you child to read when she is an adult

“Balanced”

Never write anything that can not be used as a positive comment at your eulogy.

A person I greatly admire once said that “Integrity is doing the right thing, even when no one is looking”

Adopt a similar attitude about your reportage and make sure you remain true to your integrity

May 27, 2005 - 8:42 am 29. badmonkey:

oops, bad cut and paste, and pimf, sorry,

http://www.michaelyon.blogspot.com

May 27, 2005 - 8:43 am 30. Bruce W.:

I agree with Thibaud’s analyses.

I think worthy of consideration (both to help maximize readership and advertising possibilities and also because it’s what I feel is now lacking in any one place) is having both elements–straight reporting and analyses–like all major newspapers, but with as distinct a separation of the two as possible, policed with the same vigilance as the border with Mexico if O’Reilly were in charge. A return to true journalism.

In effect, I think you need two mission statements.

On the straight reporting side, the truth shall set us free. Important events, responsibly and transparently researched to as wide an audience as possible.

The opinion/analyses side should be balanced in the sense of including a balanced variety of different but well conceived and well expressed viewpoints.

A) Here are the facts and B) here is what smart folks think they might mean.

May 27, 2005 - 8:43 am 31. Keith_Indy:

And though this doesn’t have to do with this topic, I would suggest never allowing anonymous comments to the PJ blogsite. If someone isn’t willing to stand by their comments and identify themselves, they don’t have a right to comment.

You’ll avoid a lot of unbalanced people out there sniping at the blog.

May 27, 2005 - 8:44 am 32. Duke:

Oh, come on. You guys will forbid anyone who deviates from your party line. I call you Midget Stream Media; MSM2. Will you allow Nazis? Hamas? Evangelical Christians? Communists? I could go on, but you get my drift. I blog under the mantra: “f**k you, just in case,” that allows me total independence. You are PC, Reynolds only links to his pals, and so on.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Pajama Media.

May 27, 2005 - 8:48 am 33. Paul From Mpls:

Folks -

A newcomer here, thinking about signing up to PJM, and can I just express one thought: the fact that you all exist makes me very happy.

I’m going to show this discussion thread to all of my stuck pals.

May 27, 2005 - 8:50 am 34. Paul From Mpls:

Except for the guy right in front of me. Seems a little stuck on something, I’m not sure what.

May 27, 2005 - 8:51 am 35. Coisty:

Keith_Indy – “And though this doesn’t have to do with this topic, I would suggest never allowing anonymous comments to the PJ blogsite”

Easy to say that in the US. Some of us live in countries without your First Amendment rights. Oriana Fallaci’s upcoming trial for “insulting Islam” is not likely to be the last. It’s only a matter of time before posters at blogs are arrested in Europe and Canada for politically incorrect speech.

May 27, 2005 - 8:52 am 36. Lola:

I agree about the scare quotes. I’ve seen these often enough to become irritated and wonder if the reporter has other motives when using these scare quotes, as if to somehow say “see, he’s saying this or that, but I’m not buying it and I’m doing you a favor of pointing this out” (and yes, I’m using the quotes to interpret what it is that I think I’m seeing from the reporter).

May 27, 2005 - 8:52 am 37. Bostonian:

Purple Fury, I disagree.

Often (usually) the MSM reporters really do not understand that alternative points of view even exist, so attached are they to their own narratives.

I couldn’t care less what a reporter actually believes, so long as he supports every single statement and every word in his story. The story should not have a single subjective word or phrase, except where quoting people’s claims.

For example, if seven men attacked an outpost in Iraq, then the facts we have are that seven men attacked an outpost in Iraq. Words like “insurgent” and “terrorist” are both interpretations (with varying validity, IMO).

So Mr Reporter Guy, tell us about these seven men: what is known of them in particular? Let me figure out for myself whether they are insurgents or terrorists.

I want facts, not narratives.

May 27, 2005 - 8:53 am 38. KrilliX:

I’m fair.

Other people’s opinions balance me.

May 27, 2005 - 9:02 am 39. greenmamba:

Complete objectivity does not exist. We all apply filters to the information we take in based on previous learning. (Several arguments with academically bright media people have left me frustrated by their complete inability to recognize the influence of their ideology on their commentary and reporting.)

I see blogs like this as existing to counter the enormous bias of the MSM. As such they take an opposite position and I think that clearly stating one’s position is a first step to something approaching fairness.

Truth Matters. This should be the motto of conservative blogging because journalistic leftism has spent many years directly subverting Truth.

Being self critical and admitting errors raises credibility.

Avoid bad language in editorial material. To me it makes one seem juvenile. (Anyone disagree? Note my recognition that this may just be a personal preference. Gosh, I’m so objective.)

Finally, knowing when you have achieved your goal and changing format is something to keep in mind. The left is nutty today because the goals they had in say the 60s have been won. They have failed to realize it and are trying to fight the same old battles against an “enemy” that doesn’t exist. All that’s left is for them to expand their mandate, resulting in new goals that don’t make sense.

May 27, 2005 - 9:06 am 40. thibaud:

Bruce W,

having both elements–straight reporting and analyses–like all major newspapers, but with as distinct a separation of the two as possible, policed with the same vigilance as the border with Mexico if O’Reilly were in charge. A return to true journalism

Amen. Divide the portal or GUI into two halves. The straight reporting half would follow the wire services story format – who what when etc – with absolutely no attempt at “analysis”, no ironic quote marks, no spin whatsoever.

In fact it may be worth experimenting with an entirely new article format. Instead of the inverted pyramid, ersatz story approach, why not strip down the article to bullet points with headers as is done in a typical powerpoint presentation?

For ex., standard headers preceding each set of bullet points may include

WHAT’s NEW

– Detainee retracts claim

– Only LA Times stands by PissKoran story, other media companies retract

FACTS

– Detainee: “[quote]”

– Di Rita: “[quote]”

CONTEXT

– Detainee previously said…

— etc

and so forth.

You can transmit relevant information far more quickly, and more importantly, you dispense with the bogus air of authority conveyed by the traditional article format. Equivalent of stripping away Oz’s curtain.

May 27, 2005 - 9:06 am 41. Luis David Albright:

My belief is that “fair and balanced” is purely subjective and, therefore, unattainable with common consent …

I think that the best way to approach the fair and balanced ideal is to first admit your own prejudice and be open to criticism and change. Anyone who believes that they have “total independence” is living in denial.

May 27, 2005 - 9:08 am 42. thibaud:

On the straight side, get rid of “stories.” Present info in well defined buckets as if you were briefing the CEO or DefSec or any other decisionmaker who needs an objective and accurate summation of what’s known.

And then on the opinion side of the house, you could do something similar: summarize the argument as briefly as possible, listing its component elements under headings such as EVIDENCE for CONCLUSIONS, MAJOR PREMISES, SUPPOSITIONS etc

May 27, 2005 - 9:11 am 43. Knucklehead:

As others above have noted, Kieth_Indy has pegged the “fair and balanced” thing. Don’t worry about the “balance”. You can cover every facet of everything that interests you enough to blog about. Be honest and let the readers go find weights to pile on the other side of the scale if they are interested in balance. There’s nothing wrong with picking a side and standing on it, just be honest and accurate when doing so. That’s where the MSM fails us so badly. They picked their side but they have long since lost interest in honesty and accuracy.

May 27, 2005 - 9:17 am 44. MysticSmoke:

Giving equal time to Jihadists would represent balance. This is repulsive to me as a reader and advertiser. True balance should not be the goal.

May 27, 2005 - 9:18 am 45. Charlie (Colorado):

Well, hot damn, they’ve finally straightened out the proxies so I can post from the office.

Okay, “fair and balanced”. First of all, I think a lot of the comments miss the point of PJM as I understand it: there isn’t to be *a* blog as much as it will be an infrastructure for creating collections of blog items. Thibaud’s notions, as strong as they seem to me to be (I’d read it) is something for Thibaud to do and PJM to include.

In a world where the content is being written by independent voices, “fair and balacned” has more to do with the criteria for inclusion and aggregation. If there is no ideological bias on inclusion, and there are aggregation methods that are not based on editorial choice (say, number of visitors rankings or automatic content similarity rankings) then balance should be available automatically. If there are human decisions to be made, make the criteria public and the decisions transparent.

May 27, 2005 - 9:23 am 46. Mad Mikey:

I’m thinking that PJ Media will be ‘fair & balanced’ from a certain stand point.

Most of the PJ Media contributors will – as most decent bloggers will note – strive to be completely fair, almost to the point of obsessive-compulsive.

And of course there will be some (read: barking moonnbats) that will screech that we’re not. That will, however, be their problem.

May 27, 2005 - 9:24 am 47. FriarsTale:

I’d like to mention what isn’t Fair and Balanced.

When Cokie Roberts of NPR talks of Bill Frist answering to James Dobson, but doesn’t mention Charles Schumer et al answering to Ralph Neas/PFAW, she isn’t being Fair and Balanced.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4635453

By the way, this link is a riot; she starts the “Judicial” report with a bit about John Bolton!! uh, Cokie…?

May 27, 2005 - 9:25 am 48. M.Capulus:

Belief in ‘truth’ and ‘justice’ is absolutely required for ‘fairness’ and ‘balance’; they are two sides of the same coin. Moral relativists are incapable of it because they have no moral compass, only a Machiavellian desire for power.

Like pilots in the fog without instruments, they are using are their subjective ‘feelings’ to guide them. It was fatal for JFK Jr., and it will be fatal for them.

The question for our age is how do we reestablish our lost National faith?

M. Capulus

May 27, 2005 - 9:26 am 49. erp:

Tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, also be consistent. Blog the sins of the right and left with equal zeal.

May 27, 2005 - 9:27 am 50. AllenS:

Being “fair and balanced” means that you have the ability to tell someone to go to hell, and have them look forward to going on the trip.

May 27, 2005 - 9:32 am 51. erp:

I remember a teacher whose advice was, after you have finished your work, take out all the adjectives and replace only those that add to clarity. Discard the others.

May 27, 2005 - 9:32 am 52. Katherine:

I am no sure that being fair and balance is such a great idea. ìFairnessî presupposes judgment ñ somebody in the editorial room will have to be deciding what is fair and what isnít. Then there is balance. Yes, theoretically it is nice to have voices arguing a position from opposite ideological points of view, but what happens where there is only one correct view, such as that Holocaust was evil. Would balance require somebody arguing the opposite?

(This is obviously very extreme example, but might serve as an illustration. For something more recent see reporting on the Adventure of Curious George and the Hapless Senators).

Problem is, our current MSM is already fair and balanced in that sense. They are making their own judgments of fairness, and they are providing outlets for the most outrages voices in the name of balance. Guess where the reasoning for getting out the less-than-accurately-sourced story on the ToiletKoran came from. The fair and balanced dogma forced the MSM into unbelievable contortions and now they cannot get proper perspective on what the world really is.

So, I donít want you to be fair and balanced, Roger. I want you to be factual when you report facts, opinionated when you express an opinion, open with your sources, open with your readers, providing links to the material that you are writing about and willing to admit and correct errors. In essence, exactly what you are doing right now.

And, since you have already have 400 bloggers signed up, and those bloggers have God knows how many readers, presumably with commenting privileges, the invisible hand of the market will lead us toward the truth.

May 27, 2005 - 9:34 am 53. rgvdh:

“Balance” is so subjective as to be meaningless. It just means customer and supplier agree as to what’s important.

“Fair” is the important thing. No lying. No leaving out things you’ve learned because they don’t fit the way you want the story to come out. Follow the facts where they go, rather than where you expect them to go. Be willing to be surprised.

May 27, 2005 - 9:39 am 54. neo-neocon:

I think the phrase “fair and balanced” (at least, as I interpret it) is something of an oxymoron.

Why? Because “fair” means, to me, logical, well-reasoned, factual. And “balanced” means “giving equal play to advocates of all sides of an issue” (a sort of “one from column A, one from column B, approach). Unless you subscribe to the moral relativistic position that all truths are equal, then striving for “balance” will probably dictate that some “unfair” views will, of necessity, be given a platform.

So, I think “fair and balanced” isn’t really the goal–not in that way, at least. If you take all comers, you’ll certainly have some blogs that aren’t “fair.” And, if you don’t accept all comers, then you won’t have “balance” (or, at least, it would surprise me mightily if you did, since I’m not a moral relativist).

All you can do is to strive for blogs that use reason, logic, and facts, rather than sophistry, as their main tools. And if this means that you end up with a skewed distribution in terms of political orientation (I won’t say to what side I think that would be–let that remain my secret )–well then, so be it (although you’ll take a lot of flak for it)!

May 27, 2005 - 9:41 am 55. thibaud:

A sanity check, Katharine. Henry Copeland, the blog advertising agent, admits that bloggers’ numbers are tiny. The problem is that bloggers are typically counting visits, not unique visitors. When the latter’s used, it becomes clear that the NYT’s unique visitors dwarf those of PJ, Kos etc by nearly two orders of magnitude (~30m unique visitors/month vs ~300,000 max for Kos and PJM).

If bloggers are truly to catch up and offer a compelling business proposition to advertisers, they have no choice but to offer an entirely different product from the NYT. Different format, different look and feel, different editorial approach. Either they go whole hog into LGF and Kos-land or else they provide a different technology platform. Either is a legitimate approach.

Note that I’m approaching this with a cold eye, as a finance guy. To a businessman, there is no fundamental difference between LGF and Kos. The real question is whether PJM will do something radical and exciting in the technology sphere or simply offer yet another opinionated voice. I’d guess the former is a serious business proposition and the latter another pets.com.

t

May 27, 2005 - 9:41 am 56. neo-neocon:

PS–under some circumstances it’s de rigueur to blog in one’s pajamas. Five-thirty AM, posting on the subject of Pajamas Media, would definitely qualify.

May 27, 2005 - 9:45 am 57. Stacy's Mom:

I’d prefer the PJ’s to serve as a counterbalance to the old media.

And as long as you’re not making sh!t up, that’s fair enough for me.

May 27, 2005 - 9:46 am 58. Veeshir:

I would shoot for fair.

Since, it seems to me, that you are looking to mess with the MSM, I would suggest that balance isn’t necessary. Merely be fair in what you write.

I’m not saying to be unbalanced, I just wouldn’t worry about it. Just be fair on the stories you cover and you will be far ahead of the MSM.

May 27, 2005 - 9:51 am 59. Bryan McRoberts:

Roger,

while I can understand the interest in defining “fair and balanced”, I must admit that I’m more interested in news outlets being honest and thorough. It’s okay if a particular outlet leans one way or the other – as long as they’re clear about it, and that they grapple with well-formed opposing arguments. Any news service that presents only evidence that backs up their assertion without presenting a well-thought out counter argument, cannot be presenting the whole story and is engaged in deceiving its audience. At that point its not a news service, it’s a propaganda outlet. Sad to say, but most news services these day operate according to those rules. I’ve come to look to bloggers for news and analysis first because generally they’re more transparent, grapple with the other side more openly and honestly, and readily admit their errors and make corrections/updates as necessary. If a blogger doesn’t behave that way, I don’t bother to visit their site. I’m really interested to see how your Pajama Media works out – hopefully it will eventually convince the MSM to adjust its culture as well!

May 27, 2005 - 9:53 am 60. Jeff Medcalf:

There are some good points made by previous commentors, so I won’t repeat those. I would like to add something, though.

A news site or organization is what it is as the cumulative result of its content. If you want to be seen as fair, then all of your content needs to be seen as fair. It’s not enough to simply balance coverage by having two extreme views (in opposite directions) both posted, as each extreme leaves out the vast majority of the useful information, and the overlap of the two leaves a large area uncovered.

Fair and balanced are two separate qualities. Fairness means not cherry-picking the facts to reach a conclusion, but reporting all of the relevant facts, and then making your conclusion correspond to all of the facts. In other words, to be fair you must be comprehensive and accurate, both within individual stories and in the choice of what is covered in the first place. Fairness also requires using logic and reason as the basis for argument, rather than (the sadly more common in MSM) ad hominem and tu quoque attacks.

Balance means providing a forum for others (whether part or not part of your organization) to present opposing viewpoints, argue about the emphasis on different facts, debate and discuss the merits of an argument and so on. In other words, balance requires humility, and constant attention to the fact that you just might be wrong.

Being fair and balanced are not the only worthy goals for a news organization. May I also suggest you try to be serious, respectful, rational and patriotic?

May 27, 2005 - 9:55 am 61. Katherine:

Thibaud,

I have no doubt you are right from the business point of view and I think that you niche advertising idea is great. (Though I personally am not interested in Prius etc. one tiny bit. Perhaps some extensive marketing surveys would help).

My market comment was not regarding the business market but the market of ideas as in: multitude of individuals with various backgrounds and experience adding their expertise and knowledge to the common pool of the knowledge of events.

Adam Smith wisdom applies equally well to that market. But if you prefer some other description, that is fine with me.

May 27, 2005 - 9:57 am 62. MagicC:

Fair and balanced is an inherently flawed concept. Most writing, particularly political writing, involves making some kind of an argument, and while it would be nice if everyone argued as eloquently against their own ideas as they do in their support, it is unrealistic to set this as a benchmark for “fairness”.

So what is fair, if not self-criticism? For this, we must turn to what is, by most accounts, the most “fair and balanced” field available: science. How does science achieve fairness and balance? There are many elements, but among the most important are the revealing of all pertinent information necessary to properly assess conclusions, presenting testable hypotheses and evidence in support of said hypotheses, offering alternative hypotheses as necessary, and (most importantly) PEER REVIEW.

Peer review is the check which balances facts and evidence against suppositions and conjectures. Thus, the key element of balance is built into the system of blogs, as any blog of prominence is fact checked to pieces by discerning readers and fellow bloggers alike.

A key element of peer review, however, is the ability of the reviewer to receive his hearing, with the same prominence as the reviewed. This again is a built-in feature of the blogosphere, in which ideas are viral, and spread with or without the consent of the criticized party. The MSM can (to some extent) choose whether or not to cover each other’s failings. In the blogosphere, the world is far too competitive to allow any error of substance to escape notice.

In short, “fair” is to provide all voices a fair hearing, so that the reader may decide for him or herself. And “balance” is the balance of power between the writer and critic. To the extent that all voices are heard, and power is not disproportionately allocated to a few voices at the expense of the masses, fairness and balance are an emergent property of the blogosphere, independent of any individual intent to to make it so.

May 27, 2005 - 9:58 am 63. Pierre Legrand:

Fair and Balanced to me has always meant being open about where you stand on a particular story you are reporting. Let the reader know your bias because pretending we don’t have one is a lie. I think that reporting news should follow the same path as intelligence gathering and analysis. Form a hypothisis, then go out and gather the information that supports that hypothisis present it then wait for it to be shot down.

Pierre Legrand

May 27, 2005 - 10:01 am 64. RogerA:

Lots of good comments here. I see two issues: (1) I continue to wonder about how effective the PJM will be as a news reporting organizations reporting news as it happens; but, I see a major role for the PJM in aggregating those “facts” that compromise news stories; eg, the timelines of source reporting surrounding issues like the Terri Shiavo case, or Abu Graib, TANG documents and the like–that is the kind of reporting I do NOT see in the MSM.

The second issue has to do with the orientation of blogs–I actuallly find Blobs like Kevin Drum’s and Atrios to be helpful in my understanding of how people who do not agree with me think. Other commenters have posted on the market place of ideas approach that arise from 400 or so blogs all with different orientations. I subscribe to Katherine’s position: tell us your philosophic world view (eg, national security hawk, social liberal), be honest with the facts that support your arguments, and be opinionated!! I can go to other blogs for contervailing opinions: thus the marketplace of ideas. Fair, to me, starts with reporting of facts; balance comes from a diversity of blogs in the blogosphere.

May 27, 2005 - 10:03 am 65. Jeffrey King:

Question: What Is “Fair and Balanced”?

Answer: It is an unachievable standard that is claimed by the MSM to exert their superiority. The reality is, every one of us comes with our own perspectives, experiences, opinions, and convictions which shape our understandings. Hence, all of our understandings have some sort of bias.

If “Fair and Balanced” is thus unachievable, what standard should we strive for? How about: “Honest and Transparent”. We make real attempt to find and understand reality and truth. We expose our bias, so the reader has full knowledge and can discern whether our writings are trustworthy.

“What Is ‘Fair and Balanced’?” is the wrong question. The right question is: “What standards should we hold ourselves to?” “Honest and Transparent” seems a decent answer to this question.

May 27, 2005 - 10:04 am 66. JK Ribera:

I’m not certain thibaud’s numbers are completely correct as the number of blogs in Pajamas continues to expand, as well it should. I’m not a blogger, but I would join for advertising reason alone. So if you assume blog numbers affiiated in the many thousands, the numbers of visitors (unique or not) begins to dwarf the New York Times. Maybe they are already larger than we think because since they have 400 blogs it is nowhere near possible that the same people are over-lapping and reading the same blogs. I read four or five blogs a day at most and assume that’s typical. 400, please. I like blogs but I also have to eat.

May 27, 2005 - 10:04 am 67. Pat Curley:

It’s pretty much a meaningless slogan. Let’s face it, any media organization is going to have its biases because each individual person has their own. The bias isn’t just in the presentation, either, it’s in what gets covered and what gets ignored; John Stossel doesn’t run into Leslie Stahl often on a story. Compare the stories making the rounds of the left-wing blogs and the right-wing blogs; there is some overlap, but a lot of times they’re all abuzz with something that we on the right don’t even think of as a story, and vice-versa.

We all think we’re fair in our arguments, just as nobody thinks their cause is unjust. Anybody remember the Halperin memo? He didn’t see ABC’s role as to be balanced, because while both sides were lying, the Republicans lies were worse. Much as we might like to we cannot remove the blinders. Even those of us who are centrists (and no, I don’t include myself in that group) have individual issues where they are more conservative or more liberal, and they will approach any story with that bias.

May 27, 2005 - 10:12 am 68. David Thomson:

“Honest and Transparent”

Beautiful. Why didnít I think of that? Jeffrey King has hit a home run. Our goal should indeed be ìhonest and transparent.î

May 27, 2005 - 10:12 am 69. Shinobi:

I think the bias in the MSM has stemmed from the groupthink

phenomenon. The MSM is a large group of people who benefit from agreeing with eachother and so this creates a homogenous voice. So they make big mistakes because no one wants to stand up and be different from the group. (” Hello, Mr. Editor, maybe it’s a bad idea to publish a story based on questionable stories…” “Fired? Oh.”)

I think that if as many different voices as possible are included in your project you will find an equilibrium. Even if this means including people who think Rush Limbaugh is Fair and Balanced. As long as there is someone else to point out that they might be wrong then a balance can be reached.

Also I think that it is important that Bloggers embrace differing viewpoints and not openly insult individuals who disagree with them. If they disagree then they should disagree, but ridiculing the other side of any argument does nothing to further debate and reach any kind of consensus. I can spew about how Ann Coulter is a hack for hours, but that isn’t going to further any of my points, it is just going to make me look partisan and rude.

May 27, 2005 - 10:13 am 70. Mark Poling:

Two points:

“Fair and Balanced” probably isn’t copyrighted, but still and all modeling off any legacy media institution is probably self defeating.

But if you must look for a good dual-adjective rallying phrase, might I suggest “reasonable and true”?

“Reasonable” in the Cartesian sense. (I blame Kant for a lot of the cockups of the 19th and 20th centuries, by the way.)

“True” in the Aristotelian sense, that what can be consistently observed is true, and “True” in the Romantic sense, that one should have a set of ideals to which one aspires. (Think Christopher Hitchens or Marc Cooper; their approaches to Political Economics give me the willies, but they are true to their ideals, and I respect them immensely.)

I may be screwing up my references here (disclaimer; I’m no Expert™) but I think you get the idea….

May 27, 2005 - 10:16 am 71. Maggie:

Fair…interesting that such a small simple word has such profound meaning. There is always someone commenting in high-profile legal cases about whether the defendent can get a “fair” trial. If looked at from the legal aspect, one needs to obtain a jury free from prejudice…a jury which agrees to leave any possible prejudice at the door of the jury room and base their decision solely on information presented in the courtroom.

One would then have to have a reporter/journalist/blogger leave their prejudice at the door and hit the keyboard with the information/facts they have assembled.

That “fair” trial required the opportunity for both sides to present their case.

So it should be for any presentation of “facts”. The writer should strive to obtain different perspectives tipping the scales of “justice” to neither side…but allowing the reader to discern for themselves what opinion to reach.

But then we are mere mortals.

And our journalism schools are full of students (or graduates) who have entered to “change the world.”

May 27, 2005 - 10:17 am 72. Bunker:

“honest and accurate”

That’s the best we can hope for. Brit Hume is conservative. Everyone knows it. But he is the best in the business. His social and political orientation don’t drive his reporting. He plays Devil’s Advocate to whomever he interviews with sincere questions.

That is tough. But it is what I try to do. I’m certainly not as skilled as Brit, but I strive to be. As a libertarian, I don’t fit either of the major camps in most arguments. I do fall in with conservatives far more than with liberals, though. So nobody really views me as fair and balanced, either. I just try to remain honest and accurate. I’ve been wrong before (in opinion), but I can’t remember when I’ve posted anything that wasn’t true.

What we need to avoid is what got MSM in trouble–the drive for that Pulitzer in investigative journalism. Every reporter in major media wanted to be the next Woodward. We’ve seen some hint of that in blogs recently.

Let’s just stick to what we’re doing. We already have a better history of honest journalism than do folks like the NY Times. After all, Hearst built his castle on bias.

May 27, 2005 - 10:18 am 73. Ignatz:

Forgive me if this has been mentioned, BUT:

Fair is one thing. “Balanced” assumes there are two (and really only two, in practice) sides, and that they’re of equal merit (or equally worthy of consideration).

This leads to craziness like talk shows that have a legitimate historian on with a Holocaust denier.

I’d focus more on being Fair and Accurate. Follow the Fleet St. model–Admit which side you favor, but make your case without cheating.

Also–the Left has enough huge media outlets dinning their point of view into the ears of nearly everyone. If they snooker their opponents into being “balanced,” they win. I’d look at the entire landscape, focus on what isn’t being covered and on what’s being lied about in the MSM, and go for that.

That’s the Real glory of the blogosphere. Shining a light in the nooks and crannies.

May 27, 2005 - 10:18 am 74. Ignatz:

Re: “cherry picking”: Unavoidable. You always have to select which stories you’re going to cover.

Again, I think the usefulness of the blogosphere is in filling the gaping cracks the MSM leaves, and in correcting their distortions. One can’t be all things to all readers without dissolving into a blur.

Honesty, I think, is the key to winning the reader’s trust.

May 27, 2005 - 10:20 am 75. flenser:

What makes the blogs a superior source of news analysis to the MSM is its feedback mechanism. Bloggers read other blogs, which comment on one another. Many, though not all, have comment sections where the readers can refute or support what is said. Itís not clear that this mechanism can scale up to the point of challenging the MSM. If you ever start getting tens of thousands of comments per day I assume you will simply stop reading them, or else turn commenting off completely. Likewise, to the extent that blogs achieve success, more and more blogs will be created. Eventually it will stop being feasible for someone like Glenn Renyolds to scan the blogosphere for interesting or worthwhile stories. Some would say that we have already passed this point.

If Iím right, and the feedback loop breaks down, then the resulting creation will sooner or later ossify into something MSM-like, although itís predilections to begin with will be more in tune with itís readers.

May 27, 2005 - 10:25 am 76. thibaud:

Katharine and RogerA raise interesting points about market for ideas vs economic market. By all means, let a thousand schools of thought contend, as Mao-Tse Smith said.

But I’m not so sure you can easily separate the two. Long post, here goes:

Part of the mess that the MSM have bequeathed us stems from their (economic) market dominance: in the newspaper business, nearly every major metro area today aside from NYC is now a monopoly market. More damagingly, nearly all selection of news in the US stems from editorial decisions made in one news organization based on 43rd Street in NYC.

I’d submit that this is not just due to the Times’ editors hold on the intellectual marketplace, at least as it concerns the journalistic class, but also because of its hold over the economic marketplace due to the news syndication model that gives them great influence over the content which regional and local newspapers then redistribute to their readers. And also over the broadcasters’ editorial decisions.

I suspect that the real decline of the MSM began when Rupert Murdoch via the NY Post and then Fox successfully challenged the NYT’s and its vassals in the broadcast networks’ stranglehold on the market for news. This challenge wasn’t about ideas; it was a different news format based on tabloid and flash-and-trash journalism that gained strength in the economic marketplace. The conservative talk shows only came later.

Point here is that if you neglect the economic market, you’ll likely have little impact in the intellectual market as well. And note that the biggest economic market shifts occur because of changes in format, not content.

Focus on new and cool technology, guys. Ideas will follow.

May 27, 2005 - 10:27 am 77. yadid:

Roger,

“fair and balanced” is just a slogan, and I’d treat it as such. Better find a more humorous punch line for your federation of blogs, otherwise, you’ll end up looking bad as MSM is, dull, arrogant and presumptous.

Start with feeling fair in your reports and writing, and WE the readers, will keep you balanced… otherwise, go find yourself a better day job, or a night job….

Shalom,

Yossi

May 27, 2005 - 10:28 am 78. thibaud:

Another vote for “honest and transparent.”

bte, this feeds right into my point about the importance of technology and format. Do one better than links and trackbacks: enable chat, search, queries etc. 360 degrees, not linear.

May 27, 2005 - 10:30 am 79. Jay:

“Fair”? must harder to define in any specific way that you’d think. I guess the best you can be is honest. In the context of a blog-based media, that would mean “open.” Every writer is going to brings the bias of his or her particular perspective. The most you can do is be open about that perspective, with your reader and most importantly with yourself.

Writers fail themselves and ultimately their readers when they don’t account for the limits of their vision. hey present something as “fact” when it is only the way things look from where they sit. A writer who says “this is how things look from where I sit” can inform his reader in a useful way, but if he is not forthcoming about his point of perspective, his reports are misleading.

The “Balanced” part of the equation comes with numbers. Many sources, observving from many perspectives, will provide an accurate picture. The traditional media have tried to provide balance from a single voice. It can’t work that way. The more people contributing to the story the better the chance for balance.

May 27, 2005 - 10:31 am 80. PiZero:

First, I’d like to comment on balance.

1) As has been said, perfect balance in not possible.

2) For the purpose of this comment, balance only pertains to political bias.

3) That said, I think that trying to have balance in every story is bad. Not all stories need an opposing viewpoint. The balance that I want to see in media is a roughly equal number of left and right stories from a given outlet.

Now I’ll tackle fair.

Fair has many similarities to balanced, so I just note the extras. Fair means not reporting opinion or analysis, no matter how good, as fact. (eg because of a, b, and c it is probable that x is true — not X IS TRUE) It also means that facts have reputable non-anonymous sources.

May 27, 2005 - 10:35 am 81. TallDave:

Easy, Roger.

Fair means factual, and a commitment to recognizing and correcting factual errors when they occur.

Balanced means perspectives from both sides of the issues.

One of the things I like best about Pajamas Media is that it offers the chance for a Socratic debate, under which truth can be arrived at through reasoned discourse.

May 27, 2005 - 10:49 am 82. Pamela aka "Atlas":

First off, let me say……….it’s a pleasure to chat on ou.

Secondly, I too was awakened by my delicous, enthusiastic King Charles Cavalier, Dagny, and could not return to my nocturnal tranquility. I took blogged.

Alas the Blogger gods were out last night, playing their evil little games with blogbrains.

So I answeed Harvey at Bad Examples Book meme.

Pleasantries aside…………fair and balanced.

It is simple enough to be obvious. The blogosphere is gi-norous enough to be fair and balanced. So many disparate voices, everything hyperlinked, fact checkers everywhere – under every rock. The better a blogger’s veracity, the more successful he/she will be in the long run.

We have been living with unfair and unbalanced fo so long anything is an improvement.

May 27, 2005 - 10:57 am 83. Abu El Banat:

As you indicated the standards of “fair and balanced” for PJ News should be different than that for individual blogs.

I recently read many news articles from the New York Times written during 1916 and 1917 regarding the Pershing expedition into Mexico. The contrast between those articles and the reporting in the Times and other papers today was amazing.

The early Times presented facts, just the facts. Any opinion presented was clearly identified as the opinions of significant players in the issues being reported. How refreshing. The reader could arrive at his/her own opinions.

It seems to me that this approach should be the guide for PJ News. Of course, this does not give guidance as to the selection of news to be reported on. The present New York Times gives ample guidance as to how not to conduct operations. It fails to report news that does not fit its editorial position and over reports Abu Ghraib type stories that advance its political agenda.

The PJ Media should be “fair and balanced” in allowing for a great diversity of political viewpoints of bloggers. However, individual bloggers should be free to offer “unfair and unbalanced” opinions. This will facilitate the free exchange of opinion that facilitates democracy.

May 27, 2005 - 11:01 am 84. shakespeare_101:

Definitely like the idea of a different moniker then “Fair and Balanced.”

I suggest a competition for a new catch phrase..perhaps a poll…Lots of smarter folks then I reading this blog. Perhaps a few latent marketing experts might have ideas

“Diverse and Sourced” -

Kind of a U.S. Pepsico gesture to Newsweek

I also think as time progresses and PJ Media gains blogs of differing viewpoints, there will certainly be fact-checking and perhaps even “blog wars” between those holding major differing viewpoints within PJ media itself. I suspect a pending headache is in the offing

Concentrate on the strengths of the format…Fact checking and size.

Celebrate opposing PJ Media blogs of differing opinions to diminish any pending criticism of PJ Media not having differing viewpoints.

Rule #1 Sourcing..sourcing…sourcing

Rule #2 Updating/Tracking changes to posts

Rule #3 No one changed anyones viewpoints by shouting at them…ok..caveat..outside bootcamp

Setting ground rules is a good idea.

Matt S.

phoenixblogger

May 27, 2005 - 11:01 am 85. Stoutcat:

What they all said.

Also, in the words of the (literally) immortal Lazarus Long:

“What are the facts? Again and again and again — what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history” — what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!”

May 27, 2005 - 11:08 am 86. Barbara Skolaut:

What Keith_Indy said.

One of my basic gripes with the MSM – and I’m not sure when this started, but it was a long time ago – is that what used to be the 6 o’clock news is now the 6 o’clock speculation.

I don’t give a rat’s ass what they claim some anonymous source said – I WANT FACTS. Not speculation, not what some “expert” thinks might happen or could have happened, ACTUAL FACTS. And not just the facts that support the MSM’s political position, ALL the facts. Present the facts to us a let us make our own decisions.

When the MSM claims they are quoting some anonymous source, particularly from the government, my first thought is NOT “what is the gov’t hiding” but rather “who is this source trying to get into trouble and what ax has he got to grind?” Assuming there’s a source at all, because my other immediate thought is “did the media just pull this one out of their ass because they hate the target of the accusation?”

The MSM can no longer be trusted to report accurately while hiding anonymous sources (if they ever could be), and that’s their own fault.

Pfui.

May 27, 2005 - 11:09 am 87. techunter:

To me, Fair & Balanced refers to an attitude rather than a set of principles. When one is fair and balanced they are less likely to jump to one conclusion or another just because they like how it sounds. My blog for instance is fair and balanced from time to time but is more often my opinion.

I love the president but sometimes my attempts to be fair and balanced look unfavorable on the Whitehouse, such as in the issue to immigration. The MSM is not fair and balanced because they are unwilling to be corrected when they get it wrong. It is only after people die and make threats against them that they relent of their lies.

May 27, 2005 - 11:13 am 88. everyman:

Monday’s child is fair . . . of face. I can go with the “fair” part.

Balanced? Like Karl Wallenda?

Okay with that, too.

But “fair” is in the eye of the beholder, and you/we will never get there in the eyes of many. And “balanced” means to many not selecting, having no point of view, no principle, no moral compass.

It’s up the MSM to be “fair and balanced”, at least on other than the editorial page; and MSM simply isn’t, most of the time.

It’s up to you/us to tell it as you/we see it, fair and balanced or not.

Isn’t it?

May 27, 2005 - 11:18 am 89. thibaud:

Fact-based and Transparent

May 27, 2005 - 11:24 am 90. PeterUK:

“Really All the News that is Fit to Print”

May 27, 2005 - 11:25 am 91. ManlyDad:

I see no reason for any particular blog to be “balanced.” I’m not balanced–I’m biased in many ways, based on my values and priorities. I don’t know that I’m looking for “fair” either, depending on how that is defined. I recently heard a talking head on Fox suggest that we had to fight a “fair” war. No, I prefer overwhelming force and total defeat of an enemy.

I’m looking for reliable, trustworthy and accurate reporting and discussion. And I think blogs will give me this. If I don’t find it in a blog, they’re off my list. If this standard applies to both left and right-leaning blogs, we will all be better informed, and “May the best (man) win!”

May 27, 2005 - 11:29 am 92. someone:

What is “fair and balanced”?

It’s death, when reporting about things that matter. It’s one of the liberal shibboleths that Islamism has learned from the far left how to subvert into an instrument of our self-destruction. What is the balance — the “he said, she said” — between the US and al Qaeda? Something that looks quite a lot like the BBC.

The real questions, I think, are twofold: (1) how much moonbat-blog content will make it into the PJ Media newswire? (2) what will the rest of the stories look like?

Self-selection may keep (1) a relatively small problem, but the issue remains.

For (2), I think “honest and transparent” is as good a basis as any.

May 27, 2005 - 11:33 am 93. Keith_Indy:

There’s no reason a “mission statement” slogan has to be limited 2 words.

Honest, Accurate and Transparent…

After all, there’s only so much pajamas hide.

That imagery just makes me go, ick…

Sorry Coisty, all to often we (Americans) do take our freedoms for granted. Could be why we’re trying to spread them around a bit, to share not only the pain of an uncertain future, but the pleasure of voicing our opinion about it. So, I would rather accommodate those who truly have something to fear in stating their opinions, rather than give in to those who would hide behind anonymity to attack others.

I like blogs because when I comment on something, I see my comment immediately, and I see other peoples responses to my comments (which is gratifying when people see the wisdom my words, AND humbling when they point out my folly.)

As opposed to the MSM where once in a blue moon I might get a letter in the paper, I believe 5 or 6 in 40 years for me, and hardly ever get your input onto tv.

On the blogs, if I make my case persuasively, there’s a good chance it will be echoed, and enhanced. I’ve changed peoples minds about things on blogs and forums. And I’ve also reached points where I’ve had to agree to disagree on a topic. Even when the evidence weighs in your favor, some people will still choose to be un-persuaded, or use emotion to seal the deal for themselves. And I’ve also changed my mind on things from reading blogs. I’ve grown in my understanding of myself, others, the world, and my place in it.

Another thing I’d like to see, is giving credit where credit is due.

May 27, 2005 - 11:34 am 94. Barbara Skolaut:

That would be “Present the facts to us and let us make our own decisions.”

Pfui on me too, apparently.

May 27, 2005 - 11:34 am 95. Touched_the_Obelisk:

In addition to attempting to present all of the facts, the context around those facts needs to be accessible.

For example, it’s an undisputed fact that the Marine in Falluja shot an unarmed, wounded man — it’s the context that distinguished this act as being at least somewhat justified (men in combat, the earlier acts by wounded fighters as suicide bombers) rather than cold-blooded murder.

May 27, 2005 - 11:45 am 96. Rick Ballard:

From a marketing viewpoint, I’d rather sell “Honest & Clear”,”Honesty & Clarity” or “Honest Clarity” than “Honest and Transparent”. Transparent wrt human endeavor carries some negative weight.

May 27, 2005 - 11:47 am 97. Barbara Skolaut:

Roger – just finished reading through all the comments here (most of which were thoughtful).

May I suggest that Keith has the right approach?

PJMedia’s approach should be “Accurate and Honest.”

May 27, 2005 - 11:48 am 98. zombie:

As both a mainstream writer AND an independent “citizen journalist” I can say with great confidence that being “fair and balanced” is essentially impossible, especially in this day and age. Even if one were to exclusively report “facts,” someone on some side of the political aisle will complain that it supports the other side. You can’t really win — the mere act of deciding to cover some topic is a political statement, even if you are being completely factual in your reporting.

Furthermore, the “Rashomon” problem crops up frequently as well. Often, stories being reported have different aspects of them, and one can take any of several points of view. A truly “fair and balanced” report would cover ALL points of view, but bloggers and independent journalists rarely have the resources to be all-encompassing.

The obvious example, drawn from my own experiences, are the “anti-war” protests that have been happening around the US since 9/11. Many times, I have gone to a protest in San Francisco to do a photo-essay about it, and come back with dozens of pictures showing outrageous signs and behavior, ranging from anti-Semitic to extremist anti-American to the psychotic. And yet when the San Francisco Chronicle does a report on the exact same protest, they will paint a completely different picture, showing only the most mild signs and sanest protesters.

So — who’s right? Well, we both are. My eyes are attuned to seeing one side of the proceedings, while the editors of the Chronicle only want to see the other side. And both sides exist — it just comes down to which side one wants to emphasize. I have photographic proof of anti-Semitism at the rally; the Chronicle has photographic proof of a toddler holding a sign that says, “Peace is Nice.” Which sign one features in one’s report is dependent entirely on one’s political viewpoint. I don’t think a toddler with a “Peace is Nice” sign is newsworthy, so I don’t bother reporting it. The Chronicle wants to portray the “anti-war movement” as reasonable and mainstream, so they go out of their way to hide any offensive signs or behavior.

So, in the end, it’s not really possible to be “fair and balanced.” There is a political agenda behind almost every editorial decision. And I think that the public has come to realize this. The media has now fractured to such a degree that consumers can simply choose which political slant they want to their news coverage. You want to hear one message — turn on NPR. For another message, turn on Fox. On log on to the blog of youir choice that will tell you exactly what you want to hear.

Gone are the days when some supposedly unimpeachmable news source can claim to present the one true version of reality. We’ve entered in the phase of history where the news cycle is a “battle of narratives.”

All Pajamas Media can strive for is to be factually accurate within its political framework.

May 27, 2005 - 11:55 am 99. Skookumchuk:

Ahh, semantics. I thought “Honest and Transparent” was the best so far, but you are right Rick, “transparent” can have this air of NGO UNish doublespeak about it.

Honest and Clear.

May 27, 2005 - 11:58 am 100. thibaud:

Don’t underestimate the marketing appeal of combining “transparent” and “pajamas.”

May 27, 2005 - 11:59 am 101. buzz harsher:

I propose:

1) An explicit adoption of the scientific method for the approximation of truth, and

2) Creating and maintaining an “analysis scorecard,” so that readers can evaluate an analyst’s skill at his job.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Skip “fair.” Skip “balanced.” Go for “true.” Use the scientific method to approximate truth: research, evidence, peer-review, admissions of error.

“Fair” and “balanced” are post-modern constructs that have no place in reporting. Giving the tales from Gitmo detainees the same credibility as a vetted public official is “fair.” Giving the rants of homicidal fascists the same amount of coverage as the elected leader of a free nation is “balanced.”

The motto of the media should be “Truth First.” “What actually happened?” should be the primary question of a reporter. Truth is not fair; truth is not balanced; truth is not narrative. Truth is discovered through skeptical examination of the available evidence, and the vigorous pursuit of new evidence to test hypotheses.

Full truth can only be approximated, through iteration, criticism, and re-evaluation. Scientists have developed the most successful process of deriving the truth: Evidence is clearly stated, peers are allowed to comment and find fault, and researchers remain open to the notion that they might be wrong.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

What about analysis? Analysis is the prediction of the future from given facts. If the media presents analysis, it must contain concrete, measurable, refutable statements. This way, an analyst’s skill can be evaluated, by comparing previous predictions to actual events.

May 27, 2005 - 12:02 pm 102. Lola:

How about . . . Clarity & Context

I know this doesn’t sound so exciting, perhaps someone else could play around with this and see if it can be more catchy?

And about having one’s opinion broadcast on tv – I seem to remember when the local stations would offer time slots for people to broadcast an 30-second commentary. I can’t remember the last time I saw such a commentary, though – at least 15 years ago, perhaps? I guess that precious 30 second is more valuable as an advertising slot that nearly everyone chooses to fast-forward or change the channels.

May 27, 2005 - 12:11 pm 103. Morgan:

How about “Color Coded for Accuracy”?

News and opinion both consist of a string of assertions. “P said A”, “Report R states X”, “Balance is an impossible goal” etc. What is needed is a way to allow people to comment on and attack or defend individual assertions within the text. The impact is to allow those who disagree with a given portion of the text to register the reasons for their disagreement in a way that is available for others to see.

So, let’s say that I think a particular assertion is false. I highlight it and click on “False”. This allows me to create a comment indicating why I believe as I do, linking to my sources, and so on – the assertion becomes colored (let’s say orange-yellow) in the original text to indicate that it has been disputed, and by highlighting it people can see my comment. They can, likewise, comment on my comment, but they can also vote regarding whether they believe the initial assertion to be true or false. These votes are tracked, and the color of the assertion in the original text shifts through orange toward red as more people assert its falsehood, or through yellow towards green as they assert its truth. The same thing happens in the comment, and in the comments on the comment, and so on.

This really puts the onus on the writer to stick to verifiable facts. “If your blog’s all red, then you’re dead”.

People would learn to take the color into account as they read, checking out shady assertions, taking bright green or uncolored ones as solid, and perhaps concluding that bright red assertions are almost certainly false without having to look through them.

It would be incumbent on writers to be explicit with their assertions. No ending sentences with “…” or “wink, wink”, no leaving the conclusion of an opinion unstated.

One other thing I’d love to add to my imaginary scheme – automatic linking of identical assertions across blogs affiliated with PJ Media. If it’s red here, it’s red everywhere, and votes from all readers of that assertion are compiled.

May 27, 2005 - 12:15 pm 104. Vercingetorix:

I say pooh pooh to “fair and balanced.” Fearlessness, open-mindedness, and honesty are the watchwords of good journalism.

You can never really be balanced, as that concept presupposes (probably accurately) that the ability to present competing points of view. Too often, it is impossible to discern even what your own point of view is, let alone perceiving the myriad various points of view that would need to be understood and presented in order to present a “balanced” report. Of course, the “fair” in “fair and balanced” tends to be redundant; it generally connotes a reasonable accommodation of the various points of view, and is nearly indistinguishable intellectually from the concept of balance. Each concerns itself with a mitigation of perspective by reference to other perspectives.

Personally, I don’t have a problem with perspective. If a journalist looks at a situation with genuine curiosity about its nature, is unafraid of facts that might challenge his or her perspective on the events or people involved, and tells the story as he or she truly believes it to be the case, all is fine and good.

If there are other perspectives, that’s why there are other reporters, and other news outlets. Let each bring its own perspective, and shame on readers and consumers who don’t shop around. The only way to get “fair and balanced” reporting, is to fairly balance your own news sources. Individuals who try to bring balance to their own reporting too often botch the whole thing.

May 27, 2005 - 12:18 pm 105. Rick Ballard:

Sorry for the descent into slogan picking, although Thibaud led me straight to:

Transparent Pajama Media

“The Whole Truth”

Lola – How about “Clarity and Honesty” – I think that covers much of what has been said.

May 27, 2005 - 12:18 pm 106. Keith_Indy:

I scribbled out a quick webpage that gives the barest coverage of what I’d like to see…

http://www.geocities.com/keithm_home/pajamas_media_idea.htm

And how does this sound…

Pajamas Media

Honest, Accurate and Open

May 27, 2005 - 12:22 pm 107. thibaud:

Rick – like it. Now you’re talking.

Roger – is Pamela available to help kick off the Transparent Pajama Media ad campaign?

May 27, 2005 - 12:27 pm 108. Ron Wrght:

Roger,

I guess I’m late to this party.

I attended an annual lecture series at UCR several years ago at which one of the founders of the Committee of Concerned Journalists spoke (Old school type).

http://www.journalism.org/

This was a fascinating talk on just these issues re transformational process from the old print media to the new age of communications.

The answer is simple keep news as news and commentary/opinion on the OP-ED page.

Educate the readers on how the news is gathered, sourced, provide info as to the credibility of the sources, and in short allow the readers to draw their own opinions and conclusions.

In so doing building trust with the readers. Viewership and circulation will increase as long as this trust relationship continues.

Unfortunately the media conglomerates are squeezing the last dimes from the local dailies, shrinking coverage, pandering by sensationalizing news items, and increasing advertising space to remain profitable. One effect is they can no longer afford investigative reporters. The content suffers from the least common denominator of, “He said, she said reporting.”

The communication medium of the Internet and the Blogos is esentially free, so it is not constrained by these market forces. The intrensic worth then shifts to the what value the readers place on the content.

I’ve written on this before:

Link Here

and this is a common thread in this anthology of essays:

Link Here

See the Committee’s:

A Statement of Shared Purpose

After extended examination by journalists themselves of the character of journalism at the end of the twentieth century, we offer this common understanding of what defines our work.

The central purpose of journalism is to provide citizens with accurate and reliable information they need to function in a free society

[...]

The Committee goes on to define:

Over time journalists have developed nine core principles to meet the task. They comprise what might be described as the theory of journalism

[...]

Link Here

May 27, 2005 - 12:28 pm 109. Keith_Indy:

Oh, and I forgot to say…

Roger et al, you’ve certainly opened a can of worms.

With all the comments on here, just within the last few hours, you’ve definitely tapped into an underserved market. I predict you’ll have a very popular product.

Obviously, we’ve all been thinking about these things for longer than the last 2 hours. My frustration with the MSM started in the early 90’s, as an example.

May 27, 2005 - 12:29 pm 110. jonkendall:

fair and balanced can absolutely be accomplished. as long as a reporter doesn’t knowingly lie, or misrepresent the facts, he is being fair. the balance part comes from the reader. he weighs the story in his mind, and among his own readings. i would fault a reader who relied on a sole story to develop his argument,or used only one side without adequately addressing known contentions. to ask a single reporter to be fair and balanced is addressing the middle of the process. ultimately, the reader’s knowledge and perception of an event is what a reporter is attempting to affect. so the question of fair and balanced should rightly be addressed to the reader, not the reporter.

related: the sad loss of credibility among the MSM has allowed no superior basis for argument among people with realistic views. with the lack of defensible sources, radical interpretations are much more difficult to contend.

May 27, 2005 - 12:29 pm 111. Charlie (Colorado):

Hmmm. Clear, transparent, and open pyjamas.

Sounds good to me

May 27, 2005 - 12:32 pm 112. Rick Ballard:

Keith,

“Honest, Accurate and Open” is a claim – like Fair & Balanced and subject to derision on the same basis.

“Honesty – Accuracy – Openess” reads as aims or aspirations.

The site is cool as a mockup. I’d rather see the topics as tabs at the bottom (leaves more ad space).

May 27, 2005 - 12:37 pm 113. Jeffrey King:

Clarity is not a replacement for Transparency. Clarity speaks to clarity of thought. Transparency speaks to exposure of predispositions. Open would be a suitable replacement for Transparent.

May 27, 2005 - 12:37 pm 114. Keith_Indy:

Rick – good suggestion, already incorporated.

Jeffery – Roget’s Thesaurus was my inspiration.

May 27, 2005 - 12:41 pm 115. Alan Blue:

IMNSHO, I’d deliberately set the bar higher than that used in the popular press.

1) Separate the ‘facts’ from the conclusions and opinions. Preferably by section headers.

2) Source the facts.

3) People can understand footnotes, and we aren’t going to run out of ink. So footnote everything. Hyperlinked bibliographies rock.

4) If you must use an anonymous source, use the footnotes to point out what can be known about the source ‘Senior Administration Official’ + link to what type of person that means. This prevents a single anonymous source from appearing in the same article _as_if_ they were more than one anonymous source.

4) A _factual_ error demands correction, apology, and _exposure_ of the source. ‘In article X we reported Y from ‘a senior administration official, we no longer believe that John Doe portrayed the information to us correctly. Here’s our current understanding…’

5) An error in an _unsourced_ fact is clearly something that is part of the ‘gestalt understanding’. So it deserves a fuller explanation than a simple ‘oops, my bad’. “Clearly the US Military is targeting journalists” when stated as an unsourced fact would require a full article studying precisely that: How many journalists have died, what was their situation, what were they doing, how does that compare to the opposition’s policy (AQ’s manual has journalists explicitly on the ‘target’ list.)

5) Errors in conclusions should be discussed in a yearly review article. “Looking back on year x, we made conclusions on the economy that haven’t been borne out by the later events…” Not

6) Track your feedback. Like an ombudsman, but do it openly: “We got 61 comments on our facts, 147 comments on our opinions, 42 suggestions for further research…”

The key to me seems to focus on developing trust. Having an extreme level of openness, a focus on ways to _involve_ the reader in both background research and further research, and a deliberate policy of self-examination/flagellation are precisely the pieces missing from the six’o'clock soaps.

May 27, 2005 - 12:43 pm 116. Keith_Indy:

oh, and since this project isn’t mine. I’m going to leave the mockup as it is. It’s a frame of reference only.

If Roger wants me to change it or take it down, please contact me directly.

May 27, 2005 - 12:46 pm 117. sammy small:

“Balance” requires “weighing” (or weighting) the inputs. The inputs are overwhelming every single day. Selecting and weighing requires judgement. Judgement requires knowledge, entails perspective, takes experience, and sometimes invokes emotions.

This is a difficult task which takes time, such as it does with “due diligence”. Time is the enemy of the current events news media.

Whatever you do, you can’t get any worse than the MSM.

May 27, 2005 - 12:53 pm 118. C.Y.:

As a blogger who has “Because liberalism is a persistent vegetative state” as his tagline, Iíd argue that there isnít a need to be fair and balanced, as long as you are transparent in your biases.

I am sometimes unfair, and sometimes brutally so.

We all are. Weíre human.

I donít pretend to provide balance, and sometimes that imbalance is even intentional. Biases can help illustrate a point. Problems arose in the media when people with biases offered up token moderation and then claimed a kind of honesty. Thatís where their credibility ended.

Iím “honestly biased,” but as long as you know that when you read my blog, that is fair.

Balance, I think, it an illusion.

May 27, 2005 - 1:11 pm 119. Greg:

Fair is in the eye of the beholder (reader). Somewhat the same with balance, except strongly influenced by aggregate of reporters.

Instead:

1. Accurate.

2. Process is transparent.

3. Open to correction.

4. Corrections made quickly and visibly.

5. Overall timeliness.

6. Identifiable sourcing.

I don’t think the Pajamas Media concept can be applied to the MSM concept. PJM is not limited by space/storage, or number of reporting sources. PJM should not have to pick and choose what to report, but should instead report all items that conform to the process.

May 27, 2005 - 1:26 pm 120. Gary:

Fair & Balanced was fine for awhile but it’s a tired slogan now. I’d recommend “The News Joe Friday Style (Just the facts, Mam.)” because people don’t want to be talked down to (like liberals often do) & they certainly want to know that what they’re getting is trustworthy.

May 27, 2005 - 1:39 pm 121. Bob_R:

“Fair and Balanced” is (as said above) the slogan of Fox News, but it is more than that. It is a very deliberate joke. The idea is to use the tagline “Fair and Balanced” and to have “liberals” jump up and down, turn red in the face, and sputter “Y-y-y-you’re not f-f-f-fair and b-b-b-balanced!!!, W-w-w-eeeeee’re fair and balanced.”

Seems like a pretty lame joke to me, but you have to admit, it keeps working.

May 27, 2005 - 1:47 pm 122. truepeers:

Buzz Harsher, “Truth is not fair; truth is not balanced; truth is not narrative. Truth is discovered through skeptical examination of the available evidence, and the vigorous pursuit of new evidence to test hypotheses.”

But serious, meaningful, hypotheses about the human are less tested by new evidence as by the free (as free as possible)marketplace accepting the proposed truth as true to its experience – evidence plays a role but so also does experience being somehow represented in a (new) way that rings true. George Bush was proven true-er than his opponent by winning 53% of the votes, when most of the social scientists in the universities and the reporters in the MSM flaunting their “evidence” about the American condition were against him and still are – they don’t buy our truth, because their peer-reviewed evidence says so. How many times have we had to listen, ad nauseam, to “the evidence” that ignorant Americans vote against their own class interests, or some such?

It may be true that truth is not narrative, but then the original “divine” truth is not equipped to tell its own story. Thus the narrative that emerges in its place makes truth of a new kind possible, by providing a hypothesis that can then be tested by other users of narrative. A narrative is truth deferred and sometimes “truth” proven, for a time, in the marketplace of ideas.

May 27, 2005 - 1:48 pm 123. thedragonflies:

Truthful and opinionated is my intent. I try to be courteous rather than combative (my wife keeps telling me that insults are not attractors nor peruaders even if they are fun), so – truthful, opinionated, and courteous?

May 27, 2005 - 1:50 pm 124. Eric Scheie:

“Fair and balanced” has become an accusatory phrase generally hurled about these days by partisan ideologues. To me, fairness simply means having the intellectual integrity to think your own thoughts, the honesty to say what you think, and the courage and intellectual ability to explain why. I’d define “balance” as having an open mind as free as possible from mindless ideology (bearing in mind that there is nothing unfair or unbalanced about holding strong beliefs and sticking to them).

(Because “fair and balanced” evokes either conservative applause or liberal derision, I try to avoid the expression.)

May 27, 2005 - 1:56 pm 125. Joshua Godinez:

Well, between work, lunch and the length of this thread, that took awhile. As has been restated, fair and balanced depend on the person doing the viewing.

While I agree that a consensus approach to evaluating information, as Morgan proposed, is the right way to go, there still needs to be a supreme court for PJmedia to weed out or at least clearly identify wacko’s, as determined by the purveyors of this network of blogs. I was involved with a site that tried to allow the users to determine what was good debate and found that it became dominated by extremists with a lot of time on their hands which caused moderates to flee. The one good thing about it that has been reiterated here is sourcing was almost a prerequisite for posting. Remember the early days of the net when you would spend 8 hours going from link to link, subject to subject? Users need to be allowed the freedom to waste their time going through all 2000 links of reference if they wish.

I’m not sure if anyone wants to take the risk, but I like the view proposed that fresh technology and methods are used to alert readers to what is being generally evaulated to be most accurate and represents the consensus opinion. The PJ wranglers need to be involved to keep the network moving in the direction they think is fair and lucrative.

A point made that I would like to emphasize, just because a viewpoint is held by some does not mean that its inclusion is fair. That’s one of the tech challenges. Can a view be ascribed a weight showing how widely accepted it is? Those who deny the holocaust represent X percent of the population even though they are X^2 percent of the blogs out there. Generally I notice that those who are extreme are more prolific posters than most others.

And now I’ll get wacky. I like the idea of a javascrip colored sphere that the user can rotate that represents the network of blogs. Color-coded to represent where a blog is in relation to the rest of the blogosphere, a user can zero in on the area they want to explore based on their own biases or curiosity. The rotatation would correspond to switch-outs of ads and lists of active discussions that are appropriate for that area. Monitor of usage by PJmedia would allow the owners to find where the interest and the money are. Plus it would look really cool. Owners would choose those they deem to be effective, respectful, and honest commentators to be the board of directors that assigns blogs to areas of the sphere so that blog owners wouldn’t be trying to fool people into their sites. Soon enough blogs are going to be paying for their sites to be more noticeable, just as sites are paying for their keywords and ranking in Google. Be ready and honest about it.

Thanks to LGF for the link to this interesting discussion.

May 27, 2005 - 2:12 pm 126. linda seebach:

As a journalist whose day job is writing opinions, I was going to suggest “fair and accurate” but Ignatz said it first.

Many of the comments above seem to use the word “reporter” as referring to the prototype, the city desk reporter at a metropolitan paper (or comparable broadcast outlet).

That’s like hearing “bird” and thinking only about “sparrow,” forgetting about penguins, ostriches, shrikes and dodos. Most journalists, and I include bloggers in that category when they do the same kind of work, are not in that prototype category, for various reasons. Even at newspapers, which have city desk reporters, they’re a small part of the total staff; there are sports reporters (who are not expected to be even-handed about the home team), feature writers (who when they do a profile of a gay couple who just adopted a child, do not go get a balancing quote from Focus on the Family), photographers, graphic artists and copy editors, the IT people and the librarians and the Web staff, not to mention those of us in the commentary department.

And that’s just one of the mass media. Most magazine journalism is opinion journalism of some sort, but it doesn’t bother people because they know what they’re getting and they signed up for it.

Writing about “the media” without considering how your words apply to this diversity of functions is making the same error that some MSM people make when they start sentences with “Bloggers …”

“Fair” means different things to each of these different kinds of journalists. If a city official is being criticized in a straight news story, it’s only fair to offer him a chance to respond. If you’re reviewing a new book, calling the author for comment is not customary and failing to do so is not considered unfair.

If you’re writing an editorial or a column, misquoting someone or taking his words out of context in a way you know is misleading, that’s unfair. Quoting only people who agree with you is not unfair (though it may be tactically unwise).

May 27, 2005 - 2:33 pm 127. Syl:

Rick Ballard:

“Transparent Pajama Media”

LOL Do we really want to go there?

——

Everyone, read Zombie again.

I think PM will find it’s way only after the whole thing really gets going. Hopefully through mistakes and feedback. Which is as it should be, I think.

I hate mission statements. Urk. PR gobbledygook.

I think the individual bloggers should find their own way, also. Me, I want to be opinionated, unfair, and I reserve the right to rant and have temper tantrums.

All this talk of fair and balanced scares me into NOT blogging.

May 27, 2005 - 3:23 pm 128. Rick Ballard:

“I want to be opinionated, unfair, and I reserve the right to rant and have temper tantrums.”

How long have you been at the Times?

May 27, 2005 - 3:29 pm 129. Katherine:

Rick and thibaud,

Itís terrible, but the same slogan immediately sprang to my mind upon reading thibaudís remark about power of putting together îtransparencyî and pajamasî for marketing purposes.

Does this qualify as a groupthink, or somebody simply turn on new mind-rays device?

May 27, 2005 - 3:50 pm 130. Marc at Natures Voice of Reason:

Fair and Balanced should mean only one thing, that the factual logic proves true or correct. If the discussion – argument – etc… cannot be reduced to a logical discussion it can never be fair or balanced. All the discussions that can’t be so reduced end up being arguments and opinions that favor ones own view, or the view of the “Collecturate” that “believes”.

May 27, 2005 - 4:06 pm 131. AST:

I don’t think it’s humanly possible to be completely objective, and if you were, you wouldn’t have much of a readership.

Bias enters into every judgment. The best you can do is consciously seek out reporters and editors with a variety of views. The press at the time the First Amendment was adopted was fiercely partisan, even libelous, but there was a variety and the debate was what the founders thought was important. It’s the same theory as our legal system, zealous advocates/adversaries will bring out the facts and arguments on all sides and the reader can decide.

It’s the same with the blogosphere. The MSM’s big sin is its homogeneity and the presumption that their ignorant audience needs the news to be interpreted for them. That might be true, but we don’t need the interpretations to all have the same slant.

The fact that the media let the NYTimes decide what they all should cover is offensive and belies their claims to being independent.

I expect that PJMedia, at the start, won’t have much of a choice in stories and will publish whatever they receive as long as it’s reliable. When you have to start worrying about story selection, you’ll know you’ve made it.

May 27, 2005 - 4:19 pm 132. Dan:

Many responses deal with the easy part of this dilemma. Fair and balanced is as much or more a by product of the specific stories you choose to pursue, as it is “how” you report them. The methodology is easy if you stick to facts – who, what, when, where, and how, always remembering why is not so easily discernible as a fact and often more suitable to the op ed pages. But there are land mines everywhere.

For example – “Why” is more sexy and draws more readers and a good story begins with a good lead – a good lead, by definition, is compelling and almost forces one to sensationalize to some dergee.

When issues have two or more sides, you must consult all sides and give equal weight to their contribution, without judgement. The earliest and most beneficial result of the exercise you are about to undertake may be a resulting greater appeciation for the challenges journalists, even “MSM” ones actually face.

The world almanac is chock full of objective facts – but few can’t wait to get home and read it every night. Okay, maybe Fausta. ; )

May 27, 2005 - 4:25 pm 133. Peg C.:

I agree with “transparent and accurate” (I also love Transparent Pajamas Media!) “Fair and Balanced” reminds of of that saying, “I tried to have an open mind but my brains kept falling out.” I want opinion, but I want transparency (where someone is coming from) and accuracy when dealing with facts. I have absolutely no interest in the “fairness” of being presented with the anti-Semitic, Islamofascist, or Holocaust-denial points of view as valid. I will not be reading any moonbats, and an excess of moonbatty commenters will cause me to avoid a blog.

For me, the blogosphere is the anti-MSM. That’s why I am here. The blogosphere relies on and digests the product of the MSM (and if the MSM did their job, the blogosphere never would have evolved to where it is today), and critical to that is the filter and analysis aspects. I’ve given up discerning truth in MSM pieces (print or broadcast) and come to the blogs I trust for the lowdown. Fairness and balance don’t figure into it. I want the transparency and accuracy I cannot get from the MSM. I also want the expertise we get here that the MSM cannot hope to provide, and in so many diverse fields.

Maybe Fairness, Accuracy and Expertise?

May 27, 2005 - 4:37 pm 134. JJay:

Nobody reads this far down, but here’s something worrisome: Reports coming out of Qinghai suggest H5N1 infections in humans and birds are out of control, with birds distributing H5N1 to the north and west, while people are being cremated and told to keep quiet.

May 27, 2005 - 4:37 pm 135. Peg C.:

Sorry, pimf. That should have been Transparency, Accuracy and Expertise.

May 27, 2005 - 4:40 pm 136. Katherine:

JJ

And this is relevant to the topic under discussionÖhow?

May 27, 2005 - 4:43 pm 137. Jim C.:

If anyone asks “will the PJM be fair and balanced”, the only correct response is to ask the questioner “What do you mean by fair and balanced?” In other words, make them define the terms. Then, at least, there can be a discussion. Otherwise the defintions can slip and you can wind up looking bad. If the questioner ducks that, point it out.

It’s been said that many discussions are really arguments over terminology. This is essentially a case of that.

I like the idea of at least identifying what the verifiable facts are and separating them from reports from unID’ed sources, opinions, rumors, etc. Once you do that, people can decide for themselves whether a story or the PJM itself reliable.

thibaud’s ideas look really good to me.

I like to think of myself as a “just the facts” guy. I’m not big on style, so just clear and accurate reporting would be great. The ideal (and a very high one it is) would be to use a style as clear as Isaac Asimov or C.S. Lewis. I realize this may not be to everyone’s taste.

May 27, 2005 - 5:06 pm 138. FRNM:

I agree with those who feel “fair and balanced” kind of misses the point. Are you trying to be another Fox News?

I don’t know what you have in mind for PM, but it would seem to me that an extremely useful entity would be one that would act more as a clearinghouse for facts than one that establishes itself as an end-product to readers. The value then in PM would be measured by how credible were the facts it offered to its subscriber blogs.

Those customers would either continue using PM as a credible source, or would look elsewhere if the product is inferior. The question then becomes less whether PM is “fair and balanced” and more “will I get burned if I base my latest blog entry on the material I receive from PM?”

If PM is to be a clearinghouse then the key would seem to be using the technologies available (as many above have noted) along with the strengths of the blogosphere (wide-ranging expertise, 24/7 operation, enormous diversity, fact-checking, passion, etc.) to quickly, thoroughly and openly assemble facts on any given story. It should provide a reference site for those interested in learning more than the blog which drew their attention to the matter at hand chose to reveal. It should provide a forum for those who believe they have relevant facts, and a way for PM to quickly and openly make a judgement on the proposed facts and accept or deny them as necessary.

If PM is simply a way for blogs to have quick access to stories written by other bloggers acting as de facto journalists for their local town, career field, hobby, etc., then I think the value to the blogosphere would be something different and to me, at least, a bit disappointing.

May 27, 2005 - 5:10 pm 139. Bruce W.:

All of this fun with the “Transparent Pajamas Media” has finally brought me to admit that I have not been so warm and fuzzy about tying everything to Pajamas. Much as I appreciate the underlying/historic basis for it, Integrity is ultimately what needs to be conveyed.

Sometimes in search of Integrity, we must take off our Pajamas.

Seriously, I suspect Roger and associates spent a lot of noodling over the name and are stuck on it (in a loving way). But, Roger, there seems to be quite a thoughtful group here that, if asked, might have some interesting ideas.

(Of course the lawyer in me thinks you should post a bold and clear statement that all responders to that string relinquish any intellectual porperty rights to any names or slogans that they suggest that end up being used by PJM as a result of this.)

May 27, 2005 - 5:28 pm 140. Bruce W.:

All of this fun with the “Transparent Pajamas Media” has finally brought me to admit that I have not been so warm and fuzzy about tying everything to Pajamas. Much as I appreciate the underlying/historic basis for it, Integrity is ultimately what needs to be conveyed.

Sometimes in search of Integrity, we must take off our Pajamas.

Seriously, I suspect Roger and associates spent a lot of noodling over the name and are stuck on it (in a loving way). But, Roger, there seems to be quite a thoughtful group here that, if asked, might have some interesting ideas.

(Of course the lawyer in me thinks you should post a bold and clear statement that all responders to that string relinquish any intellectual porperty rights to any names or slogans that they suggest that end up being used by PJM as a result of this.)

May 27, 2005 - 5:28 pm 141. Huan:

Fair: Only truths should be published. But not all truths are of value. And value is what can make the original better than before. It is not about criticism but constructive criticism.

Balanced: A diversity of constructive criticism. And true constructive criticism must contain the deconstruction of true contributing antecedent factors and likely possible consequences. What should be kept in mind is the goal to be better than before.

May 27, 2005 - 5:48 pm 142. Andrea in NY:

You are “fair” if… You don’t pretend that you are impartial when you’re not. You don’t pretend that your standards are higher and that you would never lower yourself to taking one side or the other. You don’t make clever arguments to bolster your secret opinion and pretend that you are doing otherwise. You’re smart enough to know that there’s a valid argument being made by the other side. You’re not so pigheaded that you can’t listen to the other side’s argument.

Balanced: You permit both sides to make their case.

May 27, 2005 - 5:58 pm 143. robromano:

Fair and balanced, to me, simply means that the news reporter, when reporting straight news, should refrain from any and all (even the most ambigious) hints of editorializing.

Otherwise, the reporter should feel free to use any language they prefer, but they should clearly label the work as an opinion piece.

No suggestive photos in the article. No naming the photos obscene or offensive names. Stuff like that makes it unfair. No suggestive adjectives or negative nouns. Just recite the facts. And when reciting the uncofirmed facts, declare them so.

The above, to me, means fair. Balanced is a whole different matter altogether. You can be equally abusive to all sides and still be balanced, but you are likely being unfair to everyone. The only thing which deserves to be treated fairly is THE TRUTH. There is no balanced truth. There is various interpretations of the truth, though, which means they can be balanced, but then it ceases to really be the truth.

So, to be balanced you should be congizant of your slants, if they exist, and compensate for them. Compensating for a slant, thereby leaning in the opposite direction, ends up making you unfaithful to the truth, or it means you are trying to paint the truth with a wide target.

So maybe fair and balanced are nearly impossible to achieve simultaneously.

So I guess just try to be one or the other!

May 27, 2005 - 6:00 pm 144. truepeers:

“What should be kept in mind is the goal to be better than before. ”

Exactly. Imaginarily measuring oneself against abstract standards or ideals, it is easy to forget this simple truth: we can only improve incrementally on what we already have.

May 27, 2005 - 6:01 pm 145. RayC:

Roger:

You correctly stated that you were opening a can of worms when you asked, ” What does ‘fair and balanced’ mean anyway?” As your commenters began, this morning, I had some reservation about Silicon valley Jim’s inclusion of subject selection as a component of f&b. Then Piranaha remarks, at 0752, raised the issue, properly I thought, of who is to guard the guardians.

I left the thread for other calls on my time, but as I thought on the subject I realized that we were missing the crux of the issue. “Fair and balanced” is not properly a consideration for any blog that I might want to read. Here is what I thought. “Fair,” from a logical standpoint is a value judgment and that term has no place in a empirical argument. The same can be said about “balanced” in the sense it is being used in this context. If we are to be scientific and objective, as opposed to judgmental and emotional, in providing each other and the world with information, there is really no occasion for the question of “fair and balanced” to arise.

When I returned to the thread, I reviewed the comments and I found that better thinkers than I had already arrived at a similar conclusion. Keith, at 8:07, concluded that we should be striving for honesty and accuracy. Bostonian, at 8:20 offered a similar conclusion. Katherine, at 0934, had a lenghty comment with the same argument. And Jeffery King, at 10:00 hit the nail firmly on the head when he said:

“What Is ‘Fair and Balanced’?” is the wrong question. The right question is: “What standards should we hold ourselves to?”

His proposal was to be honest and transparent. I lean toward Keith’s suggestion of honest and accurate, but both seem equally acceptable.

And that statement is a value judgment.

Roger, if Keith, Katherine, Jeffery King, and I might be correct, and an inquiry into what is “fair and balanced” is irrelevant since it is a question about values, is this the time for you to put your oar in the water to steer the discussion in a slightly different direction?

RayC

May 27, 2005 - 6:02 pm 146. patrick:

’sunshine is the best disinfectant’

and if you are supporting someone that cannot stand being disinfected, it is time to change allegiances.

May 27, 2005 - 6:02 pm 147. RayC:

Re: Bostonian’s comment. It was at 8:30. RayC

May 27, 2005 - 6:12 pm 148. Huan:

Keep in mind that the enemy of good is perfect.

May 27, 2005 - 6:16 pm 149. WedgeHead:

OT, but I know some of you are following what’s going on in Canada. You know, that formerly democratic country to your north that touts itself as fair and balanced, equal, diverse and respectful… the one with the official colours originating from the Crusades.

May 27, 2005 - 6:30 pm 150. mistaken optimist:

I suggest Pajamas Media post as its motto Gibbon’s cautionary line from The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire:

“The voice of history is often little more than the organ of hatred or flattery.”

It doesn’t define “fair and balanced” but explains why it’s so hard to be so.

May 27, 2005 - 6:56 pm 151. Vasily:

Please excuse the cut and paste. Their words say it better than mine. As to fair & balanced…

This synopsis of themes in classical rhetoric comes from Sharon Crowley and Debra Hawhee. Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students (Allyn & Bacon, 1999).

Cicero’s rheotical writings and the tradition of Classical Rhetoric itself capture much of what we would today call tools for critical thinking. Before approaching any topic (such as pornography on the internet), it is important to become familiar with the current state of the debate (e.g., various feminist perspectives). This initial stage constitutes “kairos.” Once we see all the positions available, we can begin to see if there are any real disagreements. Where such disagreements exist, we are in a state of “stasis.” Stasis theory provides a way to refine those areas of disagreement. Once we have refined our disagreements, we are in the position to “invent” an argument to support our position.

Kairos captures the debate in its full timeliness. “A rhetoric that privileges kairosÖ.encourages a kind of ready stance, in which the rhetor is not only attuned to the history of the issue (chronos), but is also aware of the more precise turns the arguments surrounding an issue have taken and when they took these turns.” (See the Dissoi Logoi or “Contervailing Arguments” of Gorgias.)

Failure to attend to the moment of kairos can lead to a failure to achieve stasis (that point upon which people agree to disagree).

Through a series of four questions, stasis theory casts light on the kind of disagreement at issue (e.g., “Should pornography on the internet be censored?”) by refining the points of the precise disagreement:

Stasis stochasmos: Conjecture (”Is there an act to be considered?”)

Stasis horos: Definition (”How can the act be defined?”)

Stasis poiotes: Quality (”How serious is the act?”)

Statis metalepsis: Procedure (”Should the act be submitted to some formal procedure?”)

My link-magic skills limit me to the long version.

http://caae.phil.cmu.edu/Cavalier/80130/part1/sect2/texts/ClassicalRhetoric.html

Hello fellow truth & reason fans Capulus and Neo-neocon

May 27, 2005 - 7:39 pm 152. mistaken optimist:

To be fair and balanced is to treat people and stories the way Tolstoi and Shakespeare treat their characters: judging constantly without finally Judging, qualifying constantly without pulling punches, rejecting the idea of ‘balance’ as a binary proposition (yes-no, good-bad) and embracing instead the metaphor of the portrait–rich, complex, painted not monochromatically or in black-and-white but with countless colors and infinite shades of gray. Alas, the notion that 400 bloggers, let alone thousands, can achieve this is absurd–mistaken optimism–but it’s a standard worth aspiring to.

May 27, 2005 - 8:01 pm 153. No Oil For Pacifists:

I’m not sure “fairness” or “balance” is possible or desirable. I’m not sure I would recognize it should (contrary to my expectations) it exist. But I know what it isn’t, as set forth in two posts: Spotting MSN Bias; and

Press Bias Summary Both pieces discuss techniques the MSN employs to introduce bias, including: Appeals to authority;

Anonymous authority;

Choice of experts for quotes or background;

Polls;

Man-on-the-street interviews;

World-weary cynicism; and

Discriminatory standards (most famously by Dan Rather)Should the MSM ever aspire to fairness or balance, it would have to repudiate all seven.

May 27, 2005 - 8:12 pm 154. Keith_Indy:

RayC – I think you’ve got the crux of what we were all struggling with.

“Fair and balanced” is more than a tag line, it’s a standard by which we measure FoxNews, because that’s what they propose they do.

“What standards should we hold ourselves to?”

Accurate – information presented must be accurate. And mistakes must be acknowledged. If the PJM doesn’t, its readers will.

Honest – opinions must be presented as opinions, not as foregone conclusions or facts. Don’t mix opinion with facts, without noting the transition. State the limits of your knowledge and experience. Be intellectually honest. If A + B doesn’t add up to C, then admit it.

Open – new media is interactive and collaborative, it ignores its readers at its own peril. When someone is pushing an agenda, it will be noticed. When there is a conflict of interests, it should be noted.

We, the readers, want to know we aren’t going to be lied to, or preached to from the desk of some elitist. I don’t want to know just a bloggers opinion on something, I want to know how they arrived there. RatherGate was credible because they showed you how they arrived at their opinion that the documents were faked.

Roger L. Simon is credible (to me at least) because he doesn’t try to be someone, or something he’s not. He posts about what interests him, and offers the barest of opinions at times. When he’s passionate about a subject (like Oil-for-Food,) he does the legwork and presents the case. At which point, the readers add and subtract from his arguments.

All of these aspirations are to build trust and credibility. The goal of PJM is to provide information and opinion about topics the readers will find interesting.

Why do we keep going back to certain blogs? Because we trust them, and find their opinions credible, or amusing. And when a blog we trust links to another blog, there is a built in skeptical acceptance. We are more likely to trust this unknown source because someone we trusted referenced it, (if the reference was a positive one that is.)

Well, the first question certainly got us through some twists and turns, and I’m sure the discussion isn’t over yet.

I can’t wait to find out what the second question is.

Although with only the hints at what the end product might be that we have, I have the feeling we may be getting ahead of either ourselves, or the founders of PJ-Media. Hmmm, I wonder if I can get a press pass for photography when one is available…

Hope everyone has a great Memorial Day weekend, and doesn’t forget what the Holiday is for.

http://www.usmemorialday.org/

May 27, 2005 - 8:19 pm 155. OldController:

I don’t think I can add much that hasn’t already been addressed, but we didn’t start blogging because we wanted to keep our thoughts to ourselves, did we?

I agree that “Fair and Balanced” might be unattainable, but I don’t believe that should discourage us from trying.

Support claims and arguments with facts. Forget emotions (”I feel…” is fine when you’re five years old; when you’re a grownup you have to realize that sometimes your feelings about things are wrong). I want facts; if a writer/blogger/reporter can’t show a credible source, then all we’ve got is opinion, which is fine — just say that’s what it is. I want to know who, what, where, when, and if the why is available, great. If not, don’t make it up, which is what the MSM has been doing for so many years. I’m tired of it. Don’t tell me what to think — tell me the facts and let me figure out what it means to me.

The “balanced” part I think comes with having so many different people blogging. Everybody’s got their opinion, everybody gets to say it.

I like the almost lightning-speed reaction to erroneous claims and statements that the blogosphere is famous for. I like even better the bloggers who, when faced with their mistakes, own up to them and correct them, and apologize as necessary (an honest mistake is just that, a mistake). Sometimes the information you have will be supplanted entirely in the next five minutes and your viewpoint changes entirely with the new information. The blogosphere does that and in spades. The MSM can’t hope to keep up.

With so many diverse voices here, how can it help but be balanced? Maybe I’m wrong (it happens, pretty much daily), but I haven’t seen any indication of a limitation on who can join this group other than you have to sign up to be a member, and that’s a choice, not a verdict. I have been exposed to viewpoints on the Internet and especially in the blogosphere that are so foreign to my own, it’s hard for me to grasp where they’re coming from. And that’s *good*. Growth may be painful, but you have to leave your comfort zone to learn anything.

No insults. Address the argument, don’t attack the person. And we shouldn’t use our monitors as a shield to hide behind, saying to people whose faces we may never see things we wouldn’t dare say if they were right in front of us. Courtesy matters, and written language is even less precise than the spoken word. We can’t see facial expressions or hear tone of voice (and I frickin’ hate smilies, maybe that makes me a curmudgeon but they bug me) so misunderstandings are so very easy to create and tend to mushroom.

One more thing is necessary — a thick skin. If someone’s opinion or tagline annoys a person, it might help to consider the author probably didn’t actually have you in mind when they wrote it.

May 27, 2005 - 9:04 pm 156. Gary:

Daniel Patrick Moynihan had it right when he said that we’re all entitled to our opinions, we’re just not entitled to our own FACTS. Facts are truths & that doesn’t change. Opinions can change as new truths are uncovered.

Opinions are fine so long as you can logically & intellectually explain why you believe what you believe. If you can’t, then you’re best off rethinking your opinion.

May 27, 2005 - 9:17 pm 157. Melanie:

Fair and balanced has come to mean moral equivalence. Reporting on a suicide bombing and then doing a story on the suffering by the parents of the bomber. Or saying that the US is not fair and balanced in its ME policies because it supports Israel’s right to exist. It means showing the points of view of both sides equally even when one side is committing genocide. Fair and balanced is PC talk for moral relativism. Being factual doesn’t lend itself to fairness. Just be factual and have integrity is all you need.

May 27, 2005 - 9:45 pm 158. kenneth:

The absence of malicious intent.

May 27, 2005 - 9:59 pm 159. Michael McNeil (Impearls):

I take it from some of the commenters here that neither Instapundit, nor the Volokh Conspiracy, nor Powerlineblog would be welcome amongst the Pajamas Media — since they lack comments.

May 27, 2005 - 10:14 pm 160. Buddy Larsen:

Not to be flip, but the whole blogosphere is editorial, right? So, the exclusionary rule should maybe be the ‘redeeming social value’ thingie.

A bad blog would be one too vile for the info, or too full of obvious lies for the entertainment value. But even that sort of standard is highly subjective. Besides, bad things often make good examples–unintended consequences n’ all. The extremist blogs are so chock full of pathology, bad sentence construction, & mis-spells that they may well harm their own causes.

The Invisible Hand may be the template of templates. I do think the principles, the board members, have a right to their tastes and, having put the thing together in an open free marketplace, using their own taste–even if that includes arbitrary whimsy–is part of the product that the end-user can buy, or not.

May 27, 2005 - 10:27 pm 161. klrfz1:

I always liked the slogan “We cover the world.” I think they were selling house paint. Can you use it if you file off the serial number and add a new feature?

“We cover the world. Honestly.”

“We cover the world. With transparent clarity.”

“We cover the world. In our pajamas.”

May 28, 2005 - 5:29 am 162. Rick Ballard:

Great discussion on the meaning of a marketing slogan. Roger Ailes (or the responsible party) at Fox did a helluva job in picking a marketing team which came up with a slogan that differentiated Fox from its competition using a claim that both elevated his network and denigrated his competitors.

Buddy has it precisely right – the meaning of any slogan is determined by the principles of the principals. They are taking the risk and they will reap the reward (or suffer the loss). The market decides the validity of the merchandise on offer.

May 28, 2005 - 5:35 am 163. c:

There’s the meaning of slogans, and then there’s ’semantex’. For example, will PJMedia News call a “terrorist” a “terrorist”?

May 28, 2005 - 6:52 am 164. jwookie:

With a new media empire at his finger tips Roger is asking the question to his faithful readers, whether they agree or disagree with his point of view, what does “fair and balanced” mean and how does that pertain to the newly formed Pajama Media consortium of blogs?

Since Pajama Media is brand spanking new, I think we have to look at it’s predecessors to judge. Were they fair and balanced? If not, why and which would have been better?

A lot of us in the blogosphere have devoted ample hours to the criticism of the media for their blatant bias (see Dan Rather and Newsweek), but why are we so upset about that bias? Because they continue to deny there is one. Fox News always claims to be fair and balanced by trying to provide both sides to an issue (eg Hannity and Colmes) or have some self-proclaimed centrist shouting his opinion (eg Bill O’Reilly). For the most part that has worked well for them and garnered them thousands of viewers at the expense of the MSM. But I don’t think it’s the way they report the news that makes them successful, it’s that they are open about their biases. The liberals say they’re liberal, the conservatives are proud and open conservatives. They don’t hide behind their “journalistic integrity” and claim impartiality or objectivity; they lay it all on the table and let the viewers decide. Here’s what I believe and here’s who I voted for, now take my word and opinion for what you will. And the viewers have.

So Pajama Media should do the same: state what your angle/slant/bias is then report whatever news and opinions you like. I recently have tried to do the same. I try to take what I hope to be “impartial” news right of the Dow Jones newswire, post most of, if not all of the article in question and then give my humble opinion. I could probably make it clearer my general political point of view, but it should be easily deciphered based on the sites I link and the opinions I present (that big Blogs for Bush logo ought to hint at it as well). But I think the readers get the point as would Roger’s, and that’s the key. That’s fair at least and then if they’re going for balanced try to bring in lefty bloggers as well so you can get the whole spectrum if you’d like, but I think it’s the fair that’s more important.

May 28, 2005 - 8:36 am 165. Kyda Sylvester:

Transparency. Transparency. Transparency. Honesty. Accuracy. Facts, not truth. The heterogenous nature of the blogosphere will provide natural balance. Fair? Implies disinterest, detachment, dispassion. Highly overrated in my opinion and far too subjective. Fairness would require giving a sucker an even break.

May 28, 2005 - 8:56 am 166. geoffb:

Interesting discussion. I see blogs as the web extention and evolution of usenet. One of the problems with this discussion is there are different types of sites which are all called blogs. I wish to break the blogosphere down into some different types of blogs.

I’m going to use two criteria to divide them up.

1. Who can post original material to the site.

A. One person.

B. A small ( 5 or 6) group.

C. A large but limited group.

D. Anyone can register and post.

2. Who can comment on the original post and how do their comments show up online.

A. No comments posted

B. Comments only by a select group, usually the same group that posts original material.

C. Only email comments directly to and only posted by the site editor/moderator.

A letters to the editor approach

D. Anyone can register and comment.

A blog 1A2A (example James Lileks) is going to be quite different from a 1D2D (example FreeRepublic). Each has different strengths and weaknesses. How a blog is kept honest, fair and balanced or even if it could or should be would vary for each type.

Of course even if a blogger doesn’t allow comments nothing stops others from commenting about them on their own blogs. This instant review and comment is, to me, the heart of the power of the blogosphere. Bloggers reviewing the posts of other bloggers. Over time it is possible to evaluate the honesty, fairness, balance of a blogger by reading what they have posted and what others have posted about the same topic.

The comments section of a blog can do the same thing internally for a site. It can break down if someone or some group uses the techniques of the usenet trolls to disrupt the flow of information. It would be useful to a able to evaluate comments as you can the posts by bloggers. Is it possible now or could a system be implemented where all or maybe the most recent comments by a certain person on all of the PJM sites could be seen together so you could get a feel for what biases they might have. This would act like the feedback section on Ebay where you go to see if the person you are dealing with has been honest in the past.

May 28, 2005 - 12:13 pm 167. Thomas Hazlewood:

I think you’re just beating yourself in the head by trying to fathom the ‘How’ of fair and balanced.

If you insist upon transparency and demand honesty, fairness should not be a consideration.

‘Fair and balanced’ as a goal suggests that there is ALWAYS validity to both sides of an dispute, and, this is not a truth. Would it be required that you present Saddam’s defences for his actions as simply a point of view?

The concept of ‘fairness and balance’ resulted from the near unity of the MSM in its political persuasions; the failure of the MSM to offer a point of view that clashed with their own. The existence of blogs and talk radio are the RESPONSE to a lack of fairness and balance. The arguments did not BECOME honest until their advent.

So, my point is, strive for transparency and honesty. Don’t try to be both MSM and blogger.

Regards, Tom Hazlewood

May 28, 2005 - 1:11 pm 168. Buddy Larsen:

SMSO, great post, tho your tag line puts the brakes on the presumably hoped-for post-reading rumination.

May 28, 2005 - 2:29 pm 169. bongoman:

Fair and Balanced. Not possible. Fair to whom? And just what does balanced mean anyway? I suggest this; Walter Cronkite never needed to be certified fair and balanced so lets take a page from the journalist of old. What is news; it’s what the reporter says it is. How can we return to the point where we have journalists who we trust to provide information thats pertinate and current. Truth; follow it not too closely lest it kick out thy teeth.

Facts; elusive things not of any real value unless you are an actuarial. So Walter said what he thought and left out what he did not find interesting or relevant and he presented it in a serious and dedicated fashion.

The blogoshere presents a view of the conditions that produce the facts that people quote but has no real ability to offer a factual report.

So I say lets find people that we trust who are the sole representatives of their organisation for accumulating news and leave it to them. Eventually the pale representation of what really happened will come out but in the meantime we at least can hear that something in fact has happened and form our own value judgement while awaiting the ultimate accumulation of information that tells the story.

I don’t remmember him ever assigning a political affiliation to his point of view; thank God.

Edward R. Murrow would do also.

Maybe the lack of armies of PR people has something to do with it.

May 28, 2005 - 3:18 pm 170. Bookworm:

Last year, while riffling through Time or Newsweek, I came upon a book review. Sadly, I cannot remember the book being reviewed, but I do remember the anecdote, taken from the book, that opened the review.

The book told of a county fair at the turn of the last century. A very fine bull was the prize for a contest in which people guessed the bull’s weight. The one closest to the correct weight would, of course, win. Several hundred people submitted their guesses. None was even close to right, although someone was certainly close enough to walk off with the bull as a prize.

What was interesting was what happened afterwards. A mathematician got hold of all of the hundreds of slips of paper submitted, each with a guess as to the bull’s weight. He added them up, divided them by the number of guesses, and arrived at an average that was within a mere 2 pounds of the bull’s actual weight.

The story, of course, illustrates the innate wisdom of crowds (something we bow to every time we convene a jury). In the wild and woolly world that is the blogosphere, I don’t think we can set a single standard for fair and balanced. Indeed, I don’t think we want to. Once you start setting standards, you also incrementally start imposing viewpoints and begin to stifle ideas. It is the variety of views made available in the blogosphere, amongst the many and varied pajama pundits, that leads to an average that is probably correct. This pure marketplace of ideas is probably the best crucible we can off to burn off the dross and reveal some semblance of truth.

May 28, 2005 - 10:28 pm 171. Tom Grey - Liberty Dad:

Jay Rosen at PressThink has been covering this, too.

See my post about his de-certification of the press.

Every policy has good results, and bad results — and every proposal should change the likelihood of getting such results.

News has been failing at educating people about the fact that policy changes are an attempt to change the probabilities of results. Such a complex concept is not a 30 second sound bite. But how a policy affects the future is what keeps so many interested in the “news” as infotainment.

Where does the Leftist MSM keep track of Kerry’s failure to sign and deliver his Form 180? (Which, on Jay’s site, is not-to-be-named.)

May 29, 2005 - 12:33 am 172. right of right:

I want to second No Oil For Pacifists’ fine post. Nothing drives me crazier than hearing information being reported that was gathered ‘on background’. Everytime I hear ‘on background’ I think, “I want to know who the hell said that.” I hope ‘background’ isn’t going to be necessary to PJM. Otherwise, I’ll still be asking the question, “Who the hell said that?”

May 29, 2005 - 4:48 am 173. Pamela aka "Atlas":

Veracity not mendacity

thats my slogan

Expect no moral inversion

May 29, 2005 - 7:22 am 174. Don Singleton:

I would certainly think Pajama’s Media is Fair and Balanced because it has blpggers of all political persuasions. I do not think that each blogger needs to be a centrist, but I do believe that each should provide as many links as possible to what he/she bloggs about. Certainly if blogging about an article, there should be a link to that article, so that a reader can see whether it was properly quoted, or whether something was being taken out of context.

May 29, 2005 - 11:32 am 175. Ron Wrght:

Stephen M. St. Onge,

OT Re the House of Saud I tend to agree with you. See my comment in another thread on this site:

Lin k Here

May 29, 2005 - 10:12 pm 176. Terry Ott:

This thread’s most helpful thoughts are nicely summarized by Stephen M. St. Onge, and I commend several others (who led him to the summary) for their clear thinking about why “fair and balanced” is not the right or sufficient (or attainable) grail to be crusading for.

My added thought is this: I think the prevailing culture among PJM bloggers should be one of “respectfulness”, or “civility”. It should be unacceptable to belittle or browbeat another blogger (make disparaging remarks, attack personally) in the course of taking an opposing view. The all-around discourse will better if that is part of the expectation.

May 30, 2005 - 2:51 am 177. sbw:

Roger, this is the reply to your question that I gave on sbw, my blog.

“What Is ‘Fair and Balanced’?” Well, it’s a great question that is, at the same time, the wrong question.

“Fair and Balanced” — and “Honest and Transparent”, a suggested substitute — don’t describe the necessary relationship between reporter and reader. More appropriate is to be both “accurate and useful.” While fair, balanced, honest, transparent all may be worthwhile in context, they are incidental to “accurate and useful.”

The reporter’s only job is to serve as a surrogate for the reader. The reporter helps the reader refine his mental map of reality. One’s mental map is the only tool available to plan one’s better future. When the reporter fails, the map is skewed. It becomes neither accurate nor useful.

The yardstick of journalism is how succinctly a distillation represents what needs to be known about what actually occurred. That is why “journalist” is an earned accolade — earned fresh each day. And it’s why, as a newspaper publisher, I don’t tell recruits to be fair, balanced, honest, or transparent. I put the integrity of the process on their honor. I tell them, “Write so that tomorrow you’ll feel proud about what you wrote today.”

Reporting is not so easy as it seems, because all journalism operates like a magnifying lens, distorting what is covered simply by the covering of it. Good journalism minimizes distortion.

The attributes initially suggested confuse the issue. “Unfair” and “unbalanced” are charges laid by those who are written about and who mistakenly assume that any map of reality should represent them as they want to be seen. Sorry, that’s not the job of journalism. To whom should one be honest — the subject of the story, the reporter, or the reader? And one can be extremely transparent and still botch the reporting.

Yes, many want to make journalism better, but that is complicated when so many don’t understand the first purpose of journalism — to help refine, accurately and usefully, the reader’s mental map of reality.

May 31, 2005 - 5:05 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: