I would prefer that journalists were open in regards to their political (and other) beliefs. People then can decide how much weight to apply to the article or report. I know that some stories are more objective than others, but I am highly skeptical of stories that claim to be objective, nor do I think it is possible to be totally objective.
CBS News questioned about Mike Wallace's appearance at Brady fund-raiser
- Thread starter Desertdog
- Start date
- Status
Byron Quick
Moderator In Memoriam
I feel the same. The only way I can see being totally objective about an issue is to be totally apathetic to that issue. I don't think that would be a good thing, either.
Perhaps the closest that a jounalist could come to being objective is full disclosure of possible biases. For example, a journalist who was also a Libertarian, when reporting on a controversy between Republicans and Democrats, could say something such as,"I'm a member of the Libertarian Party, I have difficulty differentiating between a Republican conservative and a Democratic liberal. Frankly, I find the platforms of both parties to be dangerous to the nation. But, bear with me, and we'll try to figure out what theses bozos are fighting about. It seems to be how much control the government should have over which parts of your lives. The conservatives and liberals are apparently in agreement that the government should control the lives of the citizenry."
Mongo the Mutterer
Member
I have to laugh when I hear the term "professional journalist". Scuuzzee meeeee.... Unless I am wrong, to be a professional you have to
1. have clear standards of conduct.
2. have licensing requirements.
3. have a licensing or professional board and standards you are answerable to.
Doctors, accountants, nursing home operators, lawyers, barbers, and beauticians (as well as many professions which don't come to mind) have those requirements.
What does a journalist have? A pen? A laptop? A copy of the Communist Manifesto? Thats about all. They aren't a profession, they are propagandists.
1. have clear standards of conduct.
2. have licensing requirements.
3. have a licensing or professional board and standards you are answerable to.
Doctors, accountants, nursing home operators, lawyers, barbers, and beauticians (as well as many professions which don't come to mind) have those requirements.
What does a journalist have? A pen? A laptop? A copy of the Communist Manifesto? Thats about all. They aren't a profession, they are propagandists.
Desertdog
Member
IMO, to be a professional you only need to make money from it, presumbaly enough to live on.
Mongo the Mutterer
Member
Desertdog = correct..
Mongo = wrong :banghead:
Mongo = wrong :banghead:
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Seems to me that the lines have been blurred, mostly since Wateegate and Deep Throat and "I'm going to J-school so I can make a DIFFERENCE!"
There are reporters: The job is to tell the old who, what, when, where, and how or why. Then, stop. Leave opinions out of it.
Journalists: Go find out. Report on what was found. Bias is okay, as long as any false claim of objectivity isn't made.
Commentators/Editorialists/Op-Ed: This where the Hannity/Colmes/Limbaugh enters in. Whether or not you agree with their views is irrelevant--but their viewpoints are known.
You can judge the views of the talking heads on the Sunday morning talk shows, regardless of their pretense. One side gets soft questions, the other gets hard questions. It's easy, then to figure it all out...
Art
There are reporters: The job is to tell the old who, what, when, where, and how or why. Then, stop. Leave opinions out of it.
Journalists: Go find out. Report on what was found. Bias is okay, as long as any false claim of objectivity isn't made.
Commentators/Editorialists/Op-Ed: This where the Hannity/Colmes/Limbaugh enters in. Whether or not you agree with their views is irrelevant--but their viewpoints are known.
You can judge the views of the talking heads on the Sunday morning talk shows, regardless of their pretense. One side gets soft questions, the other gets hard questions. It's easy, then to figure it all out...
Art
UnknownSailor
Member
Being ethical goes hand in hand with being trustworthy. For as long as anyone can remember from the Conservative side of the isle, the media has been more and more unethical. This has lead to a concurrent reduction in the trust that we, the viewing public, place in the reporting done by said news organizations. Now that we can, as the saying goes, "fact check their a**" with that wonderful medium that is the internet, we can see that the emperor has no clothes on, and hasn't for quite some while.
Legacy media hasn't caught on, in most cases, and those that do understand what's going on are trying to fight it, with McCain-Feingold being one notable example.
It's fun to watch, because the fall of National News is a good thing for those of us who want our freedoms back. Now, our voice can be heard, because legacy media no longer has a lock on what We the People can see and read.
Legacy media hasn't caught on, in most cases, and those that do understand what's going on are trying to fight it, with McCain-Feingold being one notable example.
It's fun to watch, because the fall of National News is a good thing for those of us who want our freedoms back. Now, our voice can be heard, because legacy media no longer has a lock on what We the People can see and read.
- Status