3 ms·

I agree with the distinctions you make and that we shouldn't conflate journalism with opinion pieces. I also agree that there are huge differences in journalist

I agree with the distinctions you make and that we shouldn't conflate journalism with opinion pieces. I also agree that there are huge differences in journalistic quality. But anyone who considers themselves a journalist and is operating in good faith is trying to determine and shed light on the truth, and they will all bring their own subjective beliefs to bear on this effort. My point is that just alleging the presence of bias to call a piece 'not journalism' is wrong because all journalism is biased in some way. It's a dishonest tactic that boils down to an appeal to authority.

chiefalchemist 7y ago
To clarify, I agree. To further clarify, what you think I said is not what I said. The practice of journalism will not eliminate bias. Nothing can. But it can and should mitigate it. And if you're not trying to mitigate the biases, then that's not journalism. To write shamelessly with bias is not journalism. Long to short, there is a fair amount of publishing that gets called journalism, but is actually op-ed. There's nothing wrong with that per se, other than as journalism, it's fake news. The Rachael Maddow Show is not journalism; and in that context/form she is not a journalist. Many of the Fox News Shows are not journalism. Etc. Etc. Etc. The problem is too many people treat them as news and they're op-ed. Put another way, just because you agree with an opinion doesn't mean it's journalism.
- danenania 7y ago
  Obviously, but disagreeing with a journalist’s opinions also doesn’t make them any less of a journalist if they are in fact doing journalism in good faith. I don’t watch Fox so I can’t speak to any of their shows, but from what I’ve seen of Maddow (admittedly not a lot), she is clearly doing at least some amount of journalism in terms of seeking the truth, verifying sources and facts, etc. Sure she also pushes her opinions and has an agenda, but I would argue that this is orthogonal to her journalistic integrity, which I haven’t really seen any reason to question. She is not trying to present opinions as if they were facts—she just mixes the two in a single show. Of course she is biased in what she chooses to cover, but again the point is that everyone does that to some degree. Claiming you have ‘mitigated’ your unavoidable bias is just an attempt to privilege your own perspective above others. Like science, journalism is falsifiable. If you can point to specific errors or falsehoods, you should do so. Otherwise you’re just dealing in innuendo.

chiefalchemist 7y ago

To clarify, I agree. To further clarify, what you think I said is not what I said. The practice of journalism will not eliminate bias. Nothing can. But it can and should mitigate it. And if you're not trying to mitigate the biases, then that's not journalism. To write shamelessly with bias is not journalism. Long to short, there is a fair amount of publishing that gets called journalism, but is actually op-ed. There's nothing wrong with that per se, other than as journalism, it's fake news. The Rachael Maddow Show is not journalism; and in that context/form she is not a journalist. Many of the Fox News Shows are not journalism. Etc. Etc. Etc. The problem is too many people treat them as news and they're op-ed. Put another way, just because you agree with an opinion doesn't mean it's journalism.

danenania 7y ago
Obviously, but disagreeing with a journalist’s opinions also doesn’t make them any less of a journalist if they are in fact doing journalism in good faith. I don’t watch Fox so I can’t speak to any of their shows, but from what I’ve seen of Maddow (admittedly not a lot), she is clearly doing at least some amount of journalism in terms of seeking the truth, verifying sources and facts, etc. Sure she also pushes her opinions and has an agenda, but I would argue that this is orthogonal to her journalistic integrity, which I haven’t really seen any reason to question. She is not trying to present opinions as if they were facts—she just mixes the two in a single show. Of course she is biased in what she chooses to cover, but again the point is that everyone does that to some degree. Claiming you have ‘mitigated’ your unavoidable bias is just an attempt to privilege your own perspective above others. Like science, journalism is falsifiable. If you can point to specific errors or falsehoods, you should do so. Otherwise you’re just dealing in innuendo.