CDZ Objective Journalism?

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 ) 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....

 

I don't watch the news. I let the voices in my head inform my world view

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.

 

Objective Journalism is impossible and it is all subjective Journalism.

 

When Cronkite delivered his famous Viet Nam speech, he did say " in the opinion of this reporter". Won't see that nowadays.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

If you can call CNN 'journalism' I can call Rush 'journalism' as well.

 

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.