CDZ Objective Journalism?

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by Leo123, Nov 15, 2019.

  1. Leo123
    Offline

    Leo123 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2017
    Messages:
    6,905
    Thanks Received:
    989
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +5,705
    Was there ever any such thing? Today, we generally have more access to news and information as any time in human existence. Now, when I reflect back to the 'Big 3" broadcast news organizations (ABC, CBS, NBC) it becomes obvious that all the news was filtered through corporate editors who may or may not have been objective. Someone like Walter Cronkite (whose name reminds me of a bag of commie concrete :abgg2q.jpg:) was just parroting what was fed to him. In fact, there is no objectivity and never was. The most honest 'news' sources are the ones who declare their bias up front.

    Apparently I violated Forum rules by posting this originally in all caps....My bad....
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  2. Dekster
    Offline

    Dekster Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2014
    Messages:
    6,460
    Thanks Received:
    682
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Ratings:
    +3,816
    I don't watch the news. I let the voices in my head inform my world view :26:

    I really don't watch the news any more. I use twitter for that.

    That said, arguably in the pre-internet days, the real objectivity came as a result of there be fewer competitors so wire services at the very least needed to be middle of the road in order to move copy to both left-leaning and right-leaning newspapers.
     
  3. xband
    Offline

    xband Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2016
    Messages:
    4,061
    Thanks Received:
    379
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Ratings:
    +1,816
    Objective Journalism is impossible and it is all subjective Journalism.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
  4. Third Party
    Offline

    Third Party Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2019
    Messages:
    7,555
    Thanks Received:
    617
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Ratings:
    +3,812
    When Cronkite delivered his famous Viet Nam speech, he did say " in the opinion of this reporter". Won't see that nowadays.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  5. alang1216
    Offline

    alang1216 Pragmatist

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2014
    Messages:
    8,140
    Thanks Received:
    638
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Virginia
    Ratings:
    +2,705
    There is no such thing and never was and never will be. My solution is to listen to a variety of sources from MSNBC to Rush Limbaugh. I then come to my own version of the reality. Anyone who listens to only one source, no matter how good, is getting someone's biased worldview and can't think for themselves.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  6. Tommy Tainant
    Offline

    Tommy Tainant Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2016
    Messages:
    20,546
    Thanks Received:
    2,215
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Y Cae Ras
    Ratings:
    +14,887
    Where a news source is happy to expose wrongdoing without favour then that is a source you can be more confident in what they are telling you. There are still sources that do that in the uk. Not many though.
     
  7. Syriusly
    Offline

    Syriusly Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Messages:
    52,639
    Thanks Received:
    6,595
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Ratings:
    +20,983
    Was there ever such a thing? Early journalism was incredibly biased- there is a reason there is a term of 'yellow journalism'- think a political National Enquirer which would print as many lies about politicians as they could without getting sued for libel.

    But the journalism in the '60's was more respected and was less partisan. Walter Cronkite never parroted anything- he started off as a war correspondent in WW2, and from my recollection as non-partisan as he could be.

    The lines between actual reporting- actual journalism- and opinions are blurred. And we have media on both sides that is actively and openly partisan, while back in the day CBS, NBC and ABC all were competing with each other with audiences that actually wanted non-partisan reporting.

    Media isn't perfect- but Media is always more honest than politicians. Politicians do not want Americans to believe in Media- politicians want Americans to believe them personally- so that they can get away with whatever they do.

    Pretending that a biased media is the same as the bald faced lies from politicians is destroying America.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. Syriusly
    Offline

    Syriusly Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Messages:
    52,639
    Thanks Received:
    6,595
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Ratings:
    +20,983
    I think there is value in hearing different points of view- but Rush Limbaugh is not 'journalism'- he is an entertainer who provides a point of view. I can see the value in knowing what Rush Limbaugh or Seth Meyers says, but that isn't journalism.

    I think the real danger is in equating propaganda with journalism.

    Russia publishes 'journalism' but it is done for the benefit of Putin and his cronies- not to actually inform. Even Breitbart is more journalism than RT News.
     
  9. Leo123
    Offline

    Leo123 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2017
    Messages:
    6,905
    Thanks Received:
    989
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +5,705
    If you can call CNN 'journalism' I can call Rush 'journalism' as well.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  10. Syriusly
    Offline

    Syriusly Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Messages:
    52,639
    Thanks Received:
    6,595
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Ratings:
    +20,983
    You can call your dog journalism if you want.

    CNN and Fox- talking about their news departments are journalism
    CNN and Fox's opinion shows are not journalism.
    Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer, just like Seth Meyers.
     

Share This Page