Comments on: Sacred Cows and Chicken-Fried Steak (or, the Bonfire of Objectivity) http://illuminated-media.org/?p=21 work & comment Thu, 05 Aug 2010 13:58:48 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.1 hourly 1 By: Yumi http://illuminated-media.org/?p=21&cpage=1#comment-56 Yumi Mon, 05 Nov 2007 05:18:49 +0000 http://illuminated-media.org/?p=21#comment-56 Josh ... Thank you for prompting thoughtful discussion. Please keep up the pursuit! Josh …
Thank you for prompting thoughtful discussion. Please keep up the pursuit!

]]> By: Tom Murphy http://illuminated-media.org/?p=21&cpage=1#comment-53 Tom Murphy Mon, 29 Oct 2007 00:04:22 +0000 http://illuminated-media.org/?p=21#comment-53 Simply put, journalists cannot concurrently advocate a position on an issue/candidate and strike a neutral posture in coverage. And there's no way to analyze one's own objectivity when one in deeply involved in advocacy. It's easier to see this in someone else's context: If one is actively advocating bombing Iran to prevent the development of nuclear weapons, that person cannot be relied upon for obective reports about Iran's intent to develop nuclear weapons. And I would not trust the press aide for, oh, say, Tom Trancedo, to provide fair coverage of the Democratic primaries. Can a devout Catholic cover abortion? Can Democrats cover Republicans? Can Iraqis cover the war? The answer to all these questions is yes, but only if the reporter is not actively involved, respectively in the antiabortion movement, a candidate's campaign, or an active military militia. That is not to say one cannot advocate a position and then provide coverage with full disclosure of that bias. This happens regularly in the alternative press on both the left and the right; It tends to be celebrated by those who agree with it and villified by those who disagree. All's fair, I say. At RedwoodAge.com, we encourage critical thinking about topics connected with aging in America. We recognize that the way aging is viewed in America must change in the next 20 years due to the sheer number, political will and economic reality of the baby boom. We even encourage our readers to "think critically" and "share information" and "act on thier beliefs," but we do not say what those beliefs should be. We believe an informed public is best-positioned to make those choices. Our mission is to inform. Our bloggers complement our news stories with commentary in a way columnists and op-ed writers have garnished newspapers for centuries. But our bloggers do not speak for RedwoodAge; RedwoodAge maintains a position of journalistic objectivity. To the question in your second paragraph: Right. You cannot provide fair and unbiased coverage, but you can cover it from an admittedly biased perspective that might add real value to the debate, so long as you disclose that bias in your coverage. As for the Chronicle...well, it's readership is declining, rapidly. Never underestimate the intelligence of the reader, and never try to fool them with biased coverage. They can smell crap as well as most reporters, and they vote with their subscriptions and their quarters. The Pew poll you referenced testifies loudly on this point. As journalists, we are servants, and our masters will only be pleased if we serve them well. We all must strive to do better on every story. Simply put, journalists cannot concurrently advocate a position on an issue/candidate and strike a neutral posture in coverage. And there’s no way to analyze one’s own objectivity when one in deeply involved in advocacy. It’s easier to see this in someone else’s context: If one is actively advocating bombing Iran to prevent the development of nuclear weapons, that person cannot be relied upon for obective reports about Iran’s intent to develop nuclear weapons. And I would not trust the press aide for, oh, say, Tom Trancedo, to provide fair coverage of the Democratic primaries.

Can a devout Catholic cover abortion? Can Democrats cover Republicans? Can Iraqis cover the war? The answer to all these questions is yes, but only if the reporter is not actively involved, respectively in the antiabortion movement, a candidate’s campaign, or an active military militia.

That is not to say one cannot advocate a position and then provide coverage with full disclosure of that bias. This happens regularly in the alternative press on both the left and the right; It tends to be celebrated by those who agree with it and villified by those who disagree. All’s fair, I say.

At RedwoodAge.com, we encourage critical thinking about topics connected with aging in America. We recognize that the way aging is viewed in America must change in the next 20 years due to the sheer number, political will and economic reality of the baby boom. We even encourage our readers to “think critically” and “share information” and “act on thier beliefs,” but we do not say what those beliefs should be. We believe an informed public is best-positioned to make those choices. Our mission is to inform. Our bloggers complement our news stories with commentary in a way columnists and op-ed writers have garnished newspapers for centuries. But our bloggers do not speak for RedwoodAge; RedwoodAge maintains a position of journalistic objectivity.

To the question in your second paragraph: Right. You cannot provide fair and unbiased coverage, but you can cover it from an admittedly biased perspective that might add real value to the debate, so long as you disclose that bias in your coverage.

As for the Chronicle…well, it’s readership is declining, rapidly. Never underestimate the intelligence of the reader, and never try to fool them with biased coverage. They can smell crap as well as most reporters, and they vote with their subscriptions and their quarters. The Pew poll you referenced testifies loudly on this point.

As journalists, we are servants, and our masters will only be pleased if we serve them well. We all must strive to do better on every story.

]]>