The Observation Deck

Excellent post, Will.

When I talk to journalism classes, which happens occasionally, I tell them to forget about objectivity--not for reasons of corporate influence, but because each individual brings a set of biases, has a set of contacts, has to choose additional sources, works from a limited knowledge base, etc. Some of us try very hard to be objective, which is a good pursuit. But readers should forget about finding objectivity in one paper. For that reason, I hope everyone on this board takes in several sources.

Similarly, I don't think journalists should be faulted for a general lack of objectivity. I think they should be faulted for crappy writing, crappy organization, crappy judgements of what constitutes news or valuable information, and failure to provide facts. Of course a person can do a fine job with all the areas in this paragraph without being objective.

Can I say "crappy" here?

michael gill wrote:Excellent post, Will.

When I talk to journalism classes, which happens occasionally, I tell them to forget about objectivity--not for reasons of corporate influence, but because each individual brings a set of biases, has a set of contacts, has to choose additional sources, works from a limited knowledge base, etc. Some of us try very hard to be objective, which is a good pursuit. But readers should forget about finding objectivity in one paper. For that reason, I hope everyone on this board takes in several sources.

Similarly, I don't think journalists should be faulted for a general lack of objectivity. I think they should be faulted for crappy writing, crappy organization, crappy judgements of what constitutes news or valuable information, and failure to provide facts. Of course a person can do a fine job with all the areas in this paragraph without being objective.

Can I say "crappy" here?

Michael,

It's after 10 p.m. and I don't think there's any children watching this thread closely.

The truth is, this is the USA and you can say what you will. You can print what you will too. But the other part of the equation is that no matter how correct and unbiased your opinion may be, there will always be someone out there that will try to challenge it or censor it.

No matter what facts a reporter might gather, there will always be someone griping about how your words are untrue because they believe that their facts are more accurate than yours. But maybe, their facts are lies. Or maybe your facts are lies. What if your lies are facts? Well then they will buy the rights of your facts and make them lies. It's capitalism at it's finest, where even your words, actions and intentions have a price tag.

Since you raised the subject of forgetting objectivity, I think it's an interesting thought. In a society where people are generally outwardly motivated, bias can be easy to establish. But I think that those who have an agenda and a plan for an article before any interviews or fact gathering is done should not be given the voice of however many paper issues are printed. If you're dying for readers and advertisers, then you'll find that the editors don't do enough to enforce the ethics. People won't pay for garbage, generally.

Personally, I think it's a mistake to hold journalists to the same standard in 2008 as in 1955. With the advancement in technology and deadlines being instant because of the internet and wire services, the news organizations that choose quality over quantity (amount of coverage) lose a lot of time and profit. You also have to remember that at one point, running a newspaper was one of the biggest profits. ~20%. That's if you're paying for the full benefits of 1000 workers as well as printing and operational costs.


When it comes to reading anything, you have to take it in as a whole and then see how it relates to you personally. So when you mention objectivity, you can't necessarily put out a error-free story and expect everyone to like it because it contains no errors. What you can do is make it easy enough for the reader to understand, easy enough for the reader to be informed, and easy enough for the reader to reflect on what you have written. If you can't entertain, inform, and engage the reader in some way, then you should stop typing and become a car salesman.

Ivor Karabatkovic wrote: And when some newspapers posted a higher profit than ExxonMobil in 2006, what makes them more trustworthy than the gouging oil company that has pushed many Americans into starvation?

Which newspapers were those?

Exxon posted a $39.5 billion annual profit for 2006 (which btw was the largest annual profit of any US company up to that point), I'm not aware of any newspaper outfit that came anywhere close to that number.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1

Ivor Karabatkovic wrote:
Michael,

It's after 10 p.m. and I don't think there's any children watching this thread closely.

The truth is, this is the USA and you can say what you will. You can print what you will too. But the other part of the equation is that no matter how correct and unbiased your opinion may be, there will always be someone out there that will try to challenge it or censor it.

Ivor

It is 6:00 am and no kids reading this thread still. Crap!

This is the work of being an informed. You have had to do it before 1955, before the 1900s, well before 1492, well wait before Christ, well forever. Yes since forever one person has told news to a neighbor and generally spins the news the way they see it. Because in the end they are a product of how they were raised, and their life experiences.

The news media has never been a reason to stop asking questions. If anything they should and are the reason to start asking questions.

According to Wikipediahttp://wikipedia.org

The term Fourth Estate refers to the press, both in its explicit capacity of advocacy and in its implicit ability to frame political issues. The term goes back at least to Thomas Carlyle in the first half of the 19th century.

Novelist Jeffrey Archer in his work The Fourth Estate made the observation: "In May 1789, Louis XVI summoned to Versailles a full meeting of the 'Estate General'. The First Estate consisted of three hundred clergy. The Second Estate, three hundred nobles. The Third Estate, six hundred commoners. Some years later, after the French Revolution, Edmund Burke, looking up at the Press Gallery of the House of Commons, said, 'Yonder sits the Fourth Estate, and they are more important than them all.'"

Advocacy and framing the issues.

This would seem more to the point, and a better description of what the media does and does best.

From there I am sure it is nothing more than articles written by journalists, and movies that have changed that into the "Gate Keepers Of Truth and Justice." This city should know as the media railroaded Sam Sheppard, ran Dennis Kucinich out of office, and sold us a bill of goods that is simply not true nor ever was. Now they tell us Medical Mart will save the city, A Convention Center will save the city. The same way they did Jacobs Field, Gund Arena, the Browns Stadium, The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, the Great Lakes Science Center, and the TShirt Museum.

Recently with 99% of the media rolling over so that the US Government can pervert 200 years of history and invade a country for riches and oil, that self built facade is wearing away quickly. With their love affair for certain politicans and hatred of others it is wearing away. With the report on unemployment through bogus reports, it is wearing away. Everyday they marginalize themselves more and more. Is it any wonder my age group is cynical and the young do not read news.

The self centering style of Wikipedia has become the ground work for the foums of the world. One says White is White, another says black is white, others jump in with shades of gray and before you know it the group come to the thought, "There is no pure white or pure black merely shades of gray. Everyone learns, everyones thinks and everyone applies it to their own lives.

This is how news has always been delivered, it was just the hype of the 4th Estate that made it seem more important coming off the fingers of Feagler, than O'Bryan. From Cavannah instead of Warren.

As I mentioned earlier there is even a darker side to "news." Access to the story. Write a story wrong about the Cavs, and loose your press credentials. Wait a lifetime to ask the president a question at a Press Meeting. Then ask the wrong question, and never be allowed in the press room again. Ask the right question, and suddenly you are closer to the front. Ask their question and you get to ask again. Subjects control the story, because they can in affect control the media's job. I mean what chance do you have in sports media in Cleveland if you can't get access to LeBron James.

The media nearly passed on the Watergate story. Not because of facts but do to pressure from other media, who were ignoring the story. Why was the other media ignoring the story, simple, they did not have it. It had nothing to do with the quality or size of the story. It was skipped because of financial reasons and/or connections to the Nixon White House.

Vietnam?! Any media person could have asked to see the info on the Peublo. NONE DID. So Vietnam was escalated on a lie. Later during Gulf War One, no media did enough homework to figure out the crying girl that testified to Congress about babies being pulled from incubators and thrown to the floor, and people pulled from heart and lung machines by the Iraqi Army had not been in Kuwait for over a decade. That she was the daughter of the Iraqi Ambassador, and had been coached by a team of PR pros on how and where to cry.

Now we have this farce in Afghanistan. Where the media reports that the Taliban is behind Heroin. When infact they had outlawed poppy production. However now since we invaded Afghanistan has the largest poppy crop ever, and the street price for Heroin is at an all time low.

It was the media that told us how to make bombs off the internet, that Crack was the "cheaper more powerful high" but "not as cheap as Crank." Which I saw as nothing more than massive advertising campaigns for creating problems to be reported on down the road. Thus insuring their profession. This week we were told of the "pregnancy club" that turned out to be nothing even close to the truth. But how many teens that night thought, "cool."

I know many, many, many good writers. Michael Gill is an excellent writer and an excellent editor. I have the pleasure of knowing Michael and working with him. I know how far he will go to get a story and prove a story. But I also know many others that work and live outside the sphere of the 4th Estate. This is not an attack on writers, it is more of a wake up call to readers.

In the end, much of this is my opinion, based on my facts and truths, written through my eyes.

FWIW


.

So, to summarize, I'll reach back for some good ol' fashioned wisdom gleaned from the great people in my life:

Dad: "Don't believe everything you read in the papers."

Mom: "Listen twice as much as you talk."

Science Teacher: "Start with a hypothesis, then try to disprove it."

Journalism Teacher in High School: "When you think you've got the full story, make one more call."

Scene's editor, Pete Kotz, is headed to Nashville:

http://tinyurl.com/5kgswn