3 ms·

Impartiality is a scale, not an absolute. You can be more or less impartial even if you can't be perfect at it. Saying its not possible to be (more) impartial

Impartiality is a scale, not an absolute. You can be more or less impartial even if you can't be perfect at it. Saying its not possible to be (more) impartial is propping up the divisive partisan journalism we have today.

icebraining 8y ago
Do you consider The Economist to be part of the divisive partisan journalism we have today? Because they are explicitly partial in their approach to journalism, promoting specific values and viewpoints: https://www.economist.com/help/about-us https://www.economist.com/help/about-us Partiality is not the same as partisanship or sectarianism.
- beaconstudios 8y ago
  I couldn't say, I'm not familiar enough with their work to have an opinion. When I read the news, I want to know what happened in the world - I don't want to read it through the lens of the journalist. If there was a skirmish between Israel and Hamas, tell me that. Explain the events as we understand them, without spinning them to fit into a political narrative. What I dislike is when the Guardian reports it as Israel oppressing innocent Palestinians and Fox News reports it as a terrorist attack on unsuspecting checkpoint guards. People in the left-leaning tech industry tend to interpret this as "Fox News always lies" but from what I've seen it's more like both sides lie and the truth is somewhere in the middle. The real world is murky and complicated and political issues are very rarely black-and-white (if they were, there wouldn't be 2 sides). When journalists simplify a story to pander to bias, it promotes black-and-white thinking and I believe that's extremely harmful to meaningful political engagement. [edit] > Partiality is not the same as partisanship or sectarianism. OK sure, I'll grant you that. The latter is what I take issue with. Reporting from a perspective is to be expected, a social commentary journal would focus on different facts from an economics or a culture journal and you'll have other differences. My issue is basically how political reporters spin stories.

icebraining 8y ago

Do you consider The Economist to be part of the divisive partisan journalism we have today? Because they are explicitly partial in their approach to journalism, promoting specific values and viewpoints: https://www.economist.com/help/about-us https://www.economist.com/help/about-us Partiality is not the same as partisanship or sectarianism.

beaconstudios 8y ago
I couldn't say, I'm not familiar enough with their work to have an opinion. When I read the news, I want to know what happened in the world - I don't want to read it through the lens of the journalist. If there was a skirmish between Israel and Hamas, tell me that. Explain the events as we understand them, without spinning them to fit into a political narrative. What I dislike is when the Guardian reports it as Israel oppressing innocent Palestinians and Fox News reports it as a terrorist attack on unsuspecting checkpoint guards. People in the left-leaning tech industry tend to interpret this as "Fox News always lies" but from what I've seen it's more like both sides lie and the truth is somewhere in the middle. The real world is murky and complicated and political issues are very rarely black-and-white (if they were, there wouldn't be 2 sides). When journalists simplify a story to pander to bias, it promotes black-and-white thinking and I believe that's extremely harmful to meaningful political engagement. [edit] > Partiality is not the same as partisanship or sectarianism. OK sure, I'll grant you that. The latter is what I take issue with. Reporting from a perspective is to be expected, a social commentary journal would focus on different facts from an economics or a culture journal and you'll have other differences. My issue is basically how political reporters spin stories.