Tapsearch Com EditorObjectivity schmobjectivity
August 17th 2007 00:02
There have been a few interesting comments about media bias lately. Matthew Yglesias suggested that newspapers, to keep up with the blogosphere, will have to become less "bland and inoffensive":
And the Seattle Times banned its reporters from showing their bias by applauding political comments, so NRO's Jonah Goldberg had this to say:
Gotta say he's missing the point here. Media outlets are as concerned, as they should be, with the appearance of bias as they are about the existence of reported bias. They're probably actually more concerned about the former. "Nothing" will be the effect on coverage because this effort is meant to affect appearance, not coverage, in the first place.
Also, there's an element here of very basic professional behavior. When you're reporting on a contest, you don't clap for one side or the other. If you can't restrain your emotions, you shouldn't be in a field that requires logical thought.
It would be ideal that reporters could applaud anti-Republican news, and yet no one would charge papers with liberal bias because they knew the reporters could set their feelings aside, but that simply isn't the case. If outlets are going to claim they're unbiased, they have to demand their reporters act that way.
Ask a journalist about the objectivity convention that governs US newspapers and he'll tell you a story about the vital role a neutral press plays in sustaining a vibrant democracy. It's an intriguing story, but if you ask an economist about the optimal strategy for a media organization in a market with few competitors, he'll tell you that the important thing is to be bland and inoffensive, like television before there was cable. Not coincidentally, America's newspapers have, secure in their possession of local monopolies, gotten really good at being bland and inoffensive. I'm reasonably optimistic that in the emerging, more-competitive world, new approaches will emerge.
And the Seattle Times banned its reporters from showing their bias by applauding political comments, so NRO's Jonah Goldberg had this to say:
I do love this journalistic fixation with the idea that banning the display of bias in this or that area of life will eliminate bias in actual reporting. The best example are bans on campaign donations. It's believed that reporters who are prevented from giving money to their favorite candidates will, through the magic of transference, also stop being biased in their reporting. So the reporters at the Seattle Times are prevented from clapping in anti-Bush fashion. The net result on coverage will be, What? Nothing of course.
Gotta say he's missing the point here. Media outlets are as concerned, as they should be, with the appearance of bias as they are about the existence of reported bias. They're probably actually more concerned about the former. "Nothing" will be the effect on coverage because this effort is meant to affect appearance, not coverage, in the first place.
Also, there's an element here of very basic professional behavior. When you're reporting on a contest, you don't clap for one side or the other. If you can't restrain your emotions, you shouldn't be in a field that requires logical thought.
It would be ideal that reporters could applaud anti-Republican news, and yet no one would charge papers with liberal bias because they knew the reporters could set their feelings aside, but that simply isn't the case. If outlets are going to claim they're unbiased, they have to demand their reporters act that way.
| 34 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
