Objective journalism: Does it still exist?

[pegwinn]

If it bleeds, It Leads.

Journalists are no better or worse than any other occupation. They are subject, both as an individual and as an industry, to the need for reward/recognition. There may be a few objective reporters of hard news that are in it by choice and view themselves as public servants. I just haven't read any of them.

At least the editorial pages and commentators are honest about it.

 

[PeterS]

ah, so its McCains own fault he gets negative coverage

BULLSHIT

It's McCains fault he chose a negative campaign. When you frame your position in a negative light it will be portrayed in a negative light. This is what happened with Hillary, with Bush, and now with McCain. This is the position of lesser evils and sometimes it works and sometimes it blows up in your face. Bush made it work while Hillary and McCain didn't. Media bias is when media ignores the frame and inserts their own. If I am negative and being portrayed as such this is objective not subjective reporting.

 

[DiveCon]

It's McCains fault he chose a negative campaign. When you frame your position in a negative light it will be portrayed in a negative light. This is what happened with Hillary, with Bush, and now with McCain. This is the position of lesser evils and sometimes it works and sometimes it blows up in your face. Bush made it work while Hillary and McCain didn't. Media bias is when media ignores the frame and inserts their own. If I am negative and being portrayed as such this is objective not subjective reporting.

yeah sure
cause Obama has the media willing to go negative for him
sorry, you are full of shit if you think McCain is running any worse of a campaign than Obama is when it comes to negative ads
and you should see the SHIT they put on the air up here in support of Obama and other democrats
sorry, you are way too fucking NAIVE if you think thats how it is

 

[Skull Pilot]

Well excuse the error but the point is the same. When the media follows the frame they are being objective. When the media ignores the frame they are being subjective. If you frame your position negatively and I follow the frame my story reflects your negative tone...ergo is negative.

If you want to be presented in a positive light then be positive. This is not rocket science. When you make your opponent the issue you are playing the game of lesser evils all while forgetting that evil is evil and will be presented as such. McCain, just as Hillary, is being burned by their own frame and nothing more...

It's McCains fault he chose a negative campaign. When you frame your position in a negative light it will be portrayed in a negative light. This is what happened with Hillary, with Bush, and now with McCain. This is the position of lesser evils and sometimes it works and sometimes it blows up in your face. Bush made it work while Hillary and McCain didn't. Media bias is when media ignores the frame and inserts their own. If I am negative and being portrayed as such this is objective not subjective reporting.

If you are "portrayed" as negative by a source then that source is not objective.

The pew study focused on the tone of articles not what they reported. If a source is truly objective then the tone of their articles should be neutral.

Instead of saying:

"Stocks plummeted today to cap a week long massacre in the market..."

an objective source would merely say:

"The DJI closed at X today"

The same goes with the tone of reporting with candidates if we were getting truly objective reports these opinions on whether what a candidate does is positive or negative would not be included.

It is obviously your opinion that JM has run a negative campaign so you are able to overlook the negative tone of articles. It may well be that if coverage of JM was more like coverage of BHO in that it was more neutral than negative, you might still think his campaign was negative but you would have decided that not the source.

IMO, voting for neither JM nor BHO, objectivity was not the goal of any coverage.

 

[Ravi]

McCain is running a negative campaign. Why are you surprised that the media frames their reports based on McCains lead? After all, If I am being objective and McCains presents a negative attack my report should reflect that negativity else I am being biased.

I think your complaint isn't about objectivity but a lack of subjective reporting favoring McCain. You have fox for that so be happy...

Exactly right. If anything, the study proves the media is basically unbiased.

 

[Gunny]

McCain is running a negative campaign. Why are you surprised that the media frames their reports based on McCains lead? After all, If I am being objective and McCains presents a negative attack my report should reflect that negativity else I am being biased.

I think your complaint isn't about objectivity but a lack of subjective reporting favoring McCain. You have fox for that so be happy...

A perfect example of not having Clue One about the topic but feeling compelled to say something anyway.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Exactly right. If anything, the study proves the media is basically unbiased.

We're not in Kansas anymore, Toto.

Are you so unable to step out of your own paradigm?
If the pew study showed a more negative tone for BHO you would probably disagree with it right? But since the study shows that JM received more negatively toned coverage,and you're a BHO fan, you disagree that the coverage was more balanced for BHO?

 

[Skull Pilot]

A perfect example of not having Clue One about the topic but feeling compelled to say something anyway.

What is it with these guys?

 

[Gunny]

The PEW piece was a bit surprising, both started fairly equal but McCain fell quickly as the season went on, especially after debates and poor decisions such as the economic crash and Palin selection. Is that bias or unfair, or a critical look at some poor decision making by McCain? A bit of both I suspect.

PS Barack grew for them while McCain seemed battered!

IOW, you have no objective/unbiased opinion. Yours is as twisted as your politics. Can't imagine how THAT could be, you always be so fair and unbiased and all.

 

[Annie]

It's obvious that there is no attempt to remain objective or rather to have editors that try to inject some objectivity into reporting. If there was, we'd have seen some headlines on the 'redefining' of 'rich' by the Obama team. Notice how many of the pro-Obama folks have been arguing that unless you are 'rich' you should vote for him?

TigerHawk

Tuesday, October 28, 2008
I am sure he meant rich in spirit
By TigerHawk at 10/28/2008 06:34:00 PM


If we needed more evidence that the Obama campaign is confident of victory, consider that it is already defining "rich" down. Rich was $250,000. Now "rich" is, by implication, $200,000, and Joe Biden is bidding $150,000. Anybody ready to bid $100,000?

Permalink/Main

Yet it's nowhere to be found. Folks wonder why blogs are now the source of preference for so many, well the major media will pick this up about 10 days from now, when it's too late to factor into people's voting preferences.

 

[Gunny]

Well excuse the error but the point is the same. When the media follows the frame they are being objective. When the media ignores the frame they are being subjective. If you frame your position negatively and I follow the frame my story reflects your negative tone...ergo is negative.

If you want to be presented in a positive light then be positive. This is not rocket science. When you make your opponent the issue you are playing the game of lesser evils all while forgetting that evil is evil and will be presented as such. McCain, just as Hillary, is being burned by their own frame and nothing more...

You've been watching a different Presidential campaign than I have, "Four More Years?" The negativity has come from both sides, not just one.

 

[Gunny]

Exactly right. If anything, the study proves the media is basically unbiased.

No such thing. Never was.

 

[Gunny]

What is it with these guys?

They cannot let go of Obama's shirttail long enough to have a rational discussion.

 

[strollingbones]

all news in the united states is censored to death. therefore it is no longer objective.

 

[strollingbones]

as a voter in a swing state (n.c.) i can tell you ads by both sides are going negative.
mccain's ads seem more negative and i think border on fear mongering.....but then the obama ad's are hardly anything different. the most negative ads are being ran in the hagen/dole race. the negative ads are allowed by the so called "swiftboater" type ads.
Many of the negative mailers in nc are not from the republican party nor are they indorsed by the candidate..they are from organizations that arent claimed by any party.
many of the recent anti obama ads are being mailed out of virginia...which is where a lot of the anti hagan mailers are coming from. no longer does one bring out the best in their candidates or trout what their candidate has done....but now its full out attack the other guy. and you want to discuss negative ads...pick up the latest issue of the nra magazine...

 

[editec]

Objective journalism?

You mean like giving credence to "both sides of the issue" even when one is so obviously full of beans that anyone even remotely interested can prove that one side or the other -- maybe both-- is/are a liar(s)?

Here's a throught, folks.

The TRUTH is biased.

Objectivity is NOT blihndly accepting the statements of other people.

Objective journalism is about uncovering the TRUTH.

Mindless thoughtless corporate journalism is about giving both/all sides the opportunity to speak their minds, folks.

That is pretty much what we have now.

Most journalism isn't journalism anymore.

It's posting the statements of partisans of both sides without doing a damned thing about checking the facts and informing the people when the facts don't jibe with the partisan statements.

 

[GigiBowman]

Again, I'm pretty sure I get the most up to the minute and balanced news from

Al Jazeera English - AJE At least it's read by most of the world so interesting to see what other people around the world think of us...

what I think is that The Obama kool-aid is not exclusive to the US.....

 

[Ravi]

McCain's campaign has been negative. His talking points are that Obama is a terrorist and a Marxist. Nothing can be further from the truth. I'm surprised that the media doesn't slam McCain harder for these lies. IMO, they are too easy on McCain. In their somewhat misguided attempt to be "fair" they overlook the obvious.

 

[xsited1]

John Swinton

John Swinton, the foremost journalist of his day, was asked to toast an independent press at a New York banquet given in his honour by other journalists. His response was clear and forthright:

“There is no such thing, at this stage of the world’s history in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dare write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with. Other of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my papers, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone.

“The business of the journalist is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men.

“We are intellectual prostitutes.”
John Swinton, New York 1890.

 

[midcan5]

Is America Still a Beacon for Press Freedom? | CommonDreams.org

by Craig Aaron and Josh Stearns

"The United States of America -- land of the free, home of the First Amendment -- is supposed to be a beacon for the rest of the world. So where do we stand in the latest global rankings of press freedom?

Thirty-sixth.

That's not a typo. It's a national disgrace."