3 ms·

You can have objective high quality reporting and still be pushing an agenda. It will show in what you choose to report and what issues you just don't talk abou

by dpc59 10y ago

You can have objective high quality reporting and still be pushing an agenda. It will show in what you choose to report and what issues you just don't talk about.

conistonwater 10y ago
In that case, I'd say choosing what to report is itself part of reporting, and if the choices are poor, that's low-quality reporting. So I don't really see an issue.
rhizome 10y ago
Does "objective" here apply to the reporting or to the assessment that it's high quality?
mtgx 10y ago
The alternative is neutrality, as in the old "we have to give 50-50 time to both sides". So 50% to climate change activists and 50% to climate change deniers, and so on. Is that really better than objective bias? I would think it's not. NYTimes also (publicly) gave up on neutrality in 2012, I believe. The real problem today is most media today (and I don't include ProPublica in this) isn't even objective anymore. They're just biased, and engage in biased activism, with little objectivity and facts in its way. Glenn Greenwald did an interview on this issue recently, which I think is worth watching for his perspective on this. Some may see Greenwald as "biased", but I think he's not only less biased than most "journalists" or pro-establishment figureheads on TV, but that more journalists should strive to be like him: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTC-GvWRlQ8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTC-GvWRlQ8
- grzm 10y ago
  The 50/50 method is often referred to as "false balance". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance I found the media bias article on Wikipedia to be a good primer on types of bias to keep in mind while reading. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias#Types https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias#Types It's also been useful in identifying which types of bias people refer to when they're talking about bias. I know I personally didn't have a system in place to categorize these things, and generally thought of only a few of them at a time.
maxerickson 10y ago
It's literally impossible not to have an agenda. Accurately reporting current events is an agenda. So for a meaningful criticism, you need to point out how their agenda is pernicious or contrary to their stated purpose, not just complain that they have it.

by dpc59 10y ago

You can have objective high quality reporting and still be pushing an agenda. It will show in what you choose to report and what issues you just don't talk about.

conistonwater 10y ago

In that case, I'd say choosing what to report is itself part of reporting, and if the choices are poor, that's low-quality reporting. So I don't really see an issue.

rhizome 10y ago

Does "objective" here apply to the reporting or to the assessment that it's high quality?

mtgx 10y ago

The alternative is neutrality, as in the old "we have to give 50-50 time to both sides". So 50% to climate change activists and 50% to climate change deniers, and so on. Is that really better than objective bias? I would think it's not. NYTimes also (publicly) gave up on neutrality in 2012, I believe. The real problem today is most media today (and I don't include ProPublica in this) isn't even objective anymore. They're just biased, and engage in biased activism, with little objectivity and facts in its way. Glenn Greenwald did an interview on this issue recently, which I think is worth watching for his perspective on this. Some may see Greenwald as "biased", but I think he's not only less biased than most "journalists" or pro-establishment figureheads on TV, but that more journalists should strive to be like him: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTC-GvWRlQ8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTC-GvWRlQ8

grzm 10y ago
The 50/50 method is often referred to as "false balance". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance I found the media bias article on Wikipedia to be a good primer on types of bias to keep in mind while reading. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias#Types https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias#Types It's also been useful in identifying which types of bias people refer to when they're talking about bias. I know I personally didn't have a system in place to categorize these things, and generally thought of only a few of them at a time.

maxerickson 10y ago

It's literally impossible not to have an agenda. Accurately reporting current events is an agenda. So for a meaningful criticism, you need to point out how their agenda is pernicious or contrary to their stated purpose, not just complain that they have it.