Document Actions
Objectively Speaking?
posted at 2007-09-25 23:24 | Last modified 2007-11-14 10:38
The Locke Foundation's John Hood didn’t realize he’s a national columnist - or a centrist, for that matter. But that’s how Media Matters describes him in its latest report, detailing how papers in NC and nationwide are dominated by conservatives. The full national report is here, and the NC release is here.
A few problems with the study:
- Some facts. See above.
- It doesn’t take local, regional, or non-syndicated opinion columns into account. Does the simple presence of George Will on a paper's op-ed page really tell you anything about the political leanings of its editorial board?
- Which papers responded to the survey? Is a self-selected sample really scientifically representative?
Problems aside, it’s an interesting study. And it’s just one of many takes on this month’s hot topic, objectivity in journalism.
Just today, Damon Circosta sent me a link to a Vanity Fair story about how Al Gore went from goofball to “Goreacle” in 7 years. The solution? He was a sage all along, but the press trashed him through “character driven” political reporting.
But what if reporters just didn’t like Gore? UNC J-Prof Leroy Towns says a reporter’s impression of a politician is part of what s/he ought to be reporting.
"...Notice that I carefully avoided any mention of “balance” or “impartiality,” long the holy grails of journalism. That’s because I am convinced it is time to re-examine the goals and standards of political reporting so that it assumes a useful purpose in our representative democracy….
Should reporters act with compassion, fairness and a sense of decency? Of course, but those traits are instilled and nurtured for all social endeavors. Balance and impartiality? As journalistic goals they are hopelessly elusive and even counterproductive to informed citizens. They said/they said reporting just to achieve balance often misinforms. Do all candidates, all ideas and all issues require space and time in the news? Or should readers and viewers be left with a sense of the relative importance of candidates, ideas and issues relative to their own communities?"
Over at Nieman Watchdog, Saul Friedman wonders whether “on-the-other-handism” ought to be left on the side of the road.
“…As Paul Krugman has observed, if the White House proclaims the earth to be flat and the journalist writes, “on the other hand, critics (or Democrats) say the earth is round,” reporters have not done their job, telling truth as far as you (and your sources) know it. How can any journalist take seriously, and write without challenge, the politician’s proclamation that evolution is but one side of the story? A good science reporter will know more about Darwin than any politician and he or she has the expertise to challenge such ignorance; to do otherwise is dishonest.”
I can see both sides of this one. (Sorry, can't help it.) I’m really uncomfortable with the idea that presenting opposing viewpoints on an issue “muddies” it. I think (perhaps wrongly) that my listeners/readers would prefer to make up their own minds about who’s right.
But here’s an on-the-other-hand for you: I’ll never forget the time when, after I quoted an anti-gay group in an effort to balance a piece on gay marriage, my long-suffering editor pointed out that we don’t quote the KKK every time we write about African Americans.
That’s a really good point. To what extent do we, as journalists, flatten out the perspective and depth of a story by giving all positions on an issue equal validity and consideration? And to what extent do we afford credibility to fringe interests by giving them a soapbox?
But -- since when should journalists decide who deserves a soapbox? Who made us the arbiters of what’s valid or worthy of consideration? "We report, you decide," right? Or is that just a myth?
I’m conflicted, obviously. What do you think? Drop me a line.
