Objectivity in the News

[All-American]

Calicoug pointed out in another thread that the NY Times is not particularly objective in their reporting, but then again, there aren't really any others who are all that objective. Given that objectivity is a desirable characteristic in media, I thought it worthwhile to give some shout outs to the reporters and organizations that maintain at least a semblance of objectivity-- and to note a few who fall well short of the mark.

The cons are easier to think of than the pros. The Times is infamously skewed to the left. A number of CNN reporters (Donna Brazile and LZ Granderson, to name a few) don't even try to hide it. Fox is about that far on the other side. The Wall Street Journal is somewhere between Fox and the middle. I get a sense that the Washington Post hits fairly close to center, but I could be wrong.

Impressions?

[myboynoah]

Calicoug pointed out in another thread that the NY Times is not particularly objective in their reporting, but then again, there aren't really any others who are all that objective. Given that objectivity is a desirable characteristic in media, I thought it worthwhile to give some shout outs to the reporters and organizations that maintain at least a semblance of objectivity-- and to note a few who fall well short of the mark.

The cons are easier to think of than the pros. The Times is infamously skewed to the left. A number of CNN reporters (Donna Brazile and LZ Granderson, to name a few) don't even try to hide it. Fox is about that far on the other side. The Wall Street Journal is somewhere between Fox and the middle. I get a sense that the Washington Post hits fairly close to center, but I could be wrong.

Impressions?

I think Washington Post is slightly left of center, but probably the best out there for news. Its editorial page trends lefter than righter.

[Tim]

I've been thinking about something along these lines recently. We indeed do have an expectation in the US that our news agencies be either neutral or at least balanced, but when did that start? Have Americans always had that expectation? I wonder if before some point in time our newspapers were more like those in, say, Spain, where a newspaper's political leanings are well-known. Being politically-aligned there isn't a negative -- it's simply an attribute of the publication, and customers select a paper based on their political leanings (El Periodico & El Pais: left; El Mundo & ABC: right). Was there a time in the US where the mainstream papers were openly aligned with political ideologies?

[Indy Coug]

I've been thinking about something along these lines recently. We indeed do have an expectation in the US that our news agencies be either neutral or at least balanced, but when did that start? Have Americans always had that expectation? I wonder if before some point in time our newspapers were more like those in, say, Spain, where a newspaper's political leanings are well-known. Being politically-aligned there isn't a negative -- it's simply an attribute of the publication, and customers select a paper based on their political leanings (El Periodico & El Pais: left; El Mundo & ABC: right). Was there a time in the US where the mainstream papers were openly aligned with political ideologies?

The problem is that the public's trust in the media has been completely eroded. Call it "balance" or call it "honesty", neither can really be found with any significant degree of confidence and it's very frustrating. What the majority of people find themselves having to do is cobbling together bits and pieces from here and there and trying to construct a more accurate story that lies in the middle of all of the fringe.

[frank ryan]

I've been thinking about something along these lines recently. We indeed do have an expectation in the US that our news agencies be either neutral or at least balanced, but when did that start? Have Americans always had that expectation? I wonder if before some point in time our newspapers were more like those in, say, Spain, where a newspaper's political leanings are well-known. Being politically-aligned there isn't a negative -- it's simply an attribute of the publication, and customers select a paper based on their political leanings (El Periodico & El Pais: left; El Mundo & ABC: right). Was there a time in the US where the mainstream papers were openly aligned with political ideologies?

Yeah, that is how they started. A lot of papers made no bones, especially when it came to their editorial lean. You could judge some papers by their names.

[frank ryan]

The problem is that the public's trust in the media has been completely eroded. Call it "balance" or call it "honesty", neither can really be found with any significant degree of confidence and it's very frustrating. What the majority of people find themselves having to do is cobbling together bits and pieces from here and there and trying to construct a more accurate story that lies in the middle of all of the fringe.

I disagree, you are giving people too much credit. I think a lot of people seek out and gravitate toward media that confirms their views. And even when engaging materials that resist their perceptions they often seek to discredit it.

[calicoug]

The problem is that the public's trust in the media has been completely eroded. Call it "balance" or call it "honesty", neither can really be found with any significant degree of confidence and it's very frustrating. What the majority of people find themselves having to do is cobbling together bits and pieces from here and there and trying to construct a more accurate story that lies in the middle of all of the fringe.

I agree.

I think there are at least two big reasons the media sucks at its job. First, they pander to an audience (ratings is clearly more important to news outlets than journalism; they might not throw out all journalistic standards to get ratings, but they will go pretty far and will mix in "opinion" shows on "news" channels where needed to boost ratings).

Second, in their attempt to appear "neutral," frequently statements that are clearly false or at least heavily misleading will go unchallenged and are presented as "the other side's viewpoint." There's benefit to presenting competing viewpoints, but not much benefit when one of the two competing viewpoints is simply untrue (and verifiably untrue). The media ironically loses credibility when it takes this approach.

[Paperback Writer]

I agree.

I think there are at least two big reasons the media sucks at its job. First, they pander to an audience (ratings is clearly more important to news outlets than journalism; they might not throw out all journalistic standards to get ratings, but they will go pretty far and will mix in "opinion" shows on "news" channels where needed to boost ratings).

Second, in their attempt to appear "neutral," frequently statements that are clearly false or at least heavily misleading will go unchallenged and are presented as "the other side's viewpoint." There's benefit to presenting competing viewpoints, but not much benefit when one of the two competing viewpoints is simply untrue (and verifiably untrue). The media ironically loses credibility when it takes this approach.

Agree as well. I also think the media "wants its cake and eat it too". They need to cater to their audience. They also realize that there are many politically neutral or unaffiliated who they want to influence so they try to appear neutral or unbiased when in reality they are far from it. I also think they want to appear unbiased to their dedicated readers. No one wants to think they are personally biased and are being persuaded by only one viewpoint; everyone wants to think of themselves as unbiased and well informed.