Home » But I was under the impression that “objectivity in the MSM” was already an oxymoron

Comments

But I was under the impression that “objectivity in the MSM” was already an oxymoron — 21 Comments

  1. Something Peter Drucker wrote in 1969:

    “…it is quite possible that the great new “isms” of tomorrow will be ideologies about knowledge. In tomorrow’s intellectual and potential philosophies knowledge may well take the central place that property, i.e. things, occupied in Capitalism and Marxism.”

    Seems pretty prescient…

  2. The search for objective truth is hard work. Abandoning objectivity in reporting makes the job significantly easier; no messy digging for facts, interviewing multiple people, researching. Then just pass it off as virtuous.

  3. A rational person should now be far warier of an academic opinion voiced on MSNBC (such as the drivel regularly spewed by Ruth Ben-Ghiat of NYU or Yale’s T Snyder) than that of an intelligent and well-informed (yet anonymous) blogger, as well as more inclined to lend credence to a tweet on social media from someone with a proven record of accurate assessments than to an “editorial” from Pravda-on-the-Hudson or Pravda-on-the-Potomac. Such are the depths to which have sunk both “academic expertise” and “journalistic expertise” (received “wisdom” amongst the chatterati and the wokerati) in our sadly-disintegrating republic.

  4. Biased objectivity or objectively biased. Manipulators got to manipulate. Kinda like honest lying.

  5. Remember when being the watchdog on government was the justification for having a free press? How can you be a watchdog when you’re partisan? That’s an attack dog, not a watch dog.

  6. Holman Jenkins of the WSJ has really taken the gloves off recently in going after his fellow journalists, not that they even deserve to be called that. My favorite example from his column today:

    In a galumph­ing bit of ob­tuse­ness per­haps ex­plained by the by­line of Char­lie Sav­age, the pa­per then paints Mr. Durham as a Russ­ian patsy for paw­ing through the in­no­cent Mr. Be­nar­do’s in­box in search of a fake email.

    You just don’t see that level maliciousness very often, but very well deserved. And what a great line – galumph­ing bit of ob­tuse­ness – perfect!

  7. I for one welcome the media dropping its pretense of objectivity. Fortunately, they’re too blinded by their ideological fanaticism to see that they’ve just destroyed all basis for their claim to truth. As if everyone has their own ‘truth’, then no one has a basis for asserting their view of truth to have any more validity than anyone else’s. Societal chaos among the gullible is the predictable result. Which of course is the left’s goal. Wherein they err is that its only their supporters who have no lodestone to cling to in turbulent times.

  8. Thanks for the link miguel. I read The Federalist often but somehow missed that gem.

  9. Since most of the US reporters went pro-Democrats-or-nothing-else, since around 1990/The fall of the Soviet Union, it’s nice that [some of the US reporters] have seen that they have: been acting unfairly biased…against all non-Democrats], for the past, 30 years.
    I hope that these reporters will now drop these biases.

  10. Okay. So some reporter gets a major fact wrong. Does it require a correction? After all, it’s “his truth”. So it can’t be reproached.

  11. It’s not possible to be “truth-seeking” if you summarily reject one side of an argument.

  12. Completely partisan newspapers of the 19th century were part of early journalism. Late in the century sensationalism was called yellow journalism.

    In an effort to “professionalize” journalism, university degree became available by the late 19th century.

    The muckrackers of the early 20th century were the early adopters of advocacy journalism.

    Then came gonzo journalism, made popular by Hunter Thompson in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. In narrative form, it blended fact and fiction, immersing the author in the story.

    It was a somewhat controversial topic in journalism school as advocacy journalism when I was in college. Since it was impossible to be completely unbiased, be fair, but present a point of view. My school was rather old fashioned and we practiced a balanced approach– though come to think of it, one of my professors was Lincoln Steffen’s son.

    It’s been around for a long time, in one form or another, though for a time, reporters were schooled in how to put aside their biases and fairly represent opposing points of view. How well it was done varied.

    We’ve now come full circle. In the early days at least, most towns had competing newspapers that were known for their particular point of view. We’ve lost most of that. The only saving grace is major media will be reduced to podcasts and substacks in the future.

  13. I believe it was in the 1990s when the Journo Union removed “objectivity” from their “core values”. I found out about this in the early 2000s when a part-time journo I had an acquaintance with defended a polite argument I was having with him about journo writing by pointing this out… as a defense, suggesting that he did not have any need to be objective, just because a bunch of charlatans removed it “officially” from the job specs.

  14. Sure, pure objectivity is not possible; but the problem is that so-called “reporting” has become saturated with biased and partisan opinion.
    I.e., the opinion of the reporter or the opinion of the media organ for whom the reporter reports, which are usually the same thing given the nature of the polarization and partisanship that has infected the media.
    IOW, too much journalism is “merely” ONE CONTINUAL op-ed piece—usually tilting the scales in one direction only, given the current state of the “profession”.
    And so, fairness?
    Accuracy?
    Professionalism?
    Benefit of the doubt?
    Mitigating aspects?
    Both sides of the question?
    Forgeddaboudit. The article must fit the narrative.
    It’s no longer even a question of objectivity (which is a bit of a red herring, actually). It’s a question of truthfulness. Of accuracy. Of honesty.
    It’s as though during a week-long cold snap, the weather is described as “balmy with higher-than-average temperatures”. Why? Because of the Climate-Change narrative that MUST BE MAINTAINED. (Actually, in this case, the warmer weather MUST BE ASCRIBED to “climate change”(TM).)
    Or a team that lost a baseball or football game is reported as having won it. Why? Because that team has more LFQFBTIEC<EWY players or POC on it. The NARRATIVE MUST BE MAINTAINED.
    Or a politician (or political party) that has been framed, slandered and demonized using false charges deserves to continue to be framed, slandered and demonized because…well, because THAT'S THE WAY IT IS! and the NARRATIVE MUST BE MAINTAINED.
    Or a country that had several people massacred by a terrorist is described as being, fundamentally, the cause of that attack, which attack itself is described as the act of an "armed activist" or "freedom fighter", since the country whose citizens were killed is a country that has no legitimacy and must be erased. The NARRATIVE MUST BE MAINTAINED.

    So the problem is not the jettisoning of "objectivity".
    The problem is the OFFICIALLY AUTHROIZED jettisoning of accuracy, honesty and fairness by intentionally disguising such values as, or intentionally confusing them with, "objectivity".

  15. Hubris isn’t just an unappealing personality trait. It’s a tragic flaw. It contains the seeds of destruction.

    The news media destroyed its credibility when its people began to believe that they were smarter, more moral, more worthy than their audience. They believe that they are uniquely qualified to determine what we should know, how we should vote, what policies are good and proper. They believe that they and their like-minded friends should rule over the rest of us.

    They fumbled their humble. And it has destroyed them.

    Their friends in Big Tech are just as bad. Perhaps even worse. https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2023/01/31/whoa-googleleaks-tells-twitterfiles-to-hold-its-beer-with-bombshell-filled-thread/

  16. President Thomas Jefferson was maligned viciously by the opposition press during his presidency.

    This is what he thought of them: “…my opinion of the manner in which a newspaper should be conducted so as to be most useful, I should answer, “by retraining it to true facts and sound principles only.” Yet I fear such a paper would find few subscribers. It is a melancholy truth that a suppression of the press could not more completely deprive the nation of its benefits than is done by its abandoned prostitution to falsehood. Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situation to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day…..I will add that the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them, inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors.”

    Some things, apparently, never change.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>