4 ms·

There's plenty to criticize about both the modern media landscape and modern "wokeness", but this piece seems more cultural grievance than productive critique.

There's plenty to criticize about both the modern media landscape and modern "wokeness", but this piece seems more cultural grievance than productive critique. Personally, when it comes to political journalism, one of my favorite pieces is Jay Rosen's "Why Political Coverage is Broken"[1]. I think it covers specific problems with media coverage in more detail, and provides a better path to restoring trust in news than "be more objective". [1] https://pressthink.org/2011/08/why-political-coverage-is-broken/ https://pressthink.org/2011/08/why-political-coverage-is-bro...

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
Rosen's piece seems like it's taking the opposite position, no? Unless I'm missing something, he's arguing that the media is too neutral, too willing to just report what politicians do rather than taking a stance. One of his examples of bad reporting is describing a candidate's campaign strategies without discussing whether the candidate should win. (Although I suppose there's also no reason that 2011 Australia and 2021 USA would necessarily have comparable media landscapes.)
- lazulicurio 6y ago
  Yes and no. If you read other pieces of his, he goes into more detail about how there's a difference between objectivity and partisan neutrality. He calls partisan neutrality the "view from nowhere"---a framing device that divorces politics from its real-world effects.
  - rayiner 6y ago
    A good rejoinder to that is from theories of procedural democracy. A press that is neutral as to partisanship is perceived within the overall political framework as being fair, which has the very positive effect of engendering trust in the institution. It’s the same reason why judges and courts strive to avoid the perception of substantive bias. Politics must be divorced from “its real-world effects” because people of different political persuasions disagree about what real-world effects policies will have (or whether some effects outweigh other effects). A liberal reporting neutral facts about say a proposed immigration policy is still useful to a conservative. A liberal’s take on what they think will be “the real-world effects” of a proposed policy (at least, the ones they care about) will not be useful.
    - lazulicurio 6y ago
      > It’s the same reason why judges and courts strive to avoid the perception of substantive bias. I see the point that you're trying to make, but I'll also turn it on it's head: when a judge makes a ruling does that mean that they were "biased" in favor of the winning party? > Politics must be divorced from “its real-world effects” Does a judge ignore the "real-world effects" of their orders and only consider the behavior of the lawyers? > A liberal’s take on what they think will be “the real-world effects” of a proposed policy (at least, the ones they care about) will not be useful. Is a liberal judge's reasoning in an opinion not valuable to a conservative judge?
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    I get the idea, but I just fundamentally disagree with it. Writers who don't make efforts to maintain partisan neutrality will inevitably leave major gaps in their readers' understanding of the world, because they won't be able to help readers understand perspectives the writers don't personally agree with. For a concrete example, there was a recent initiative in my state (California Prop 16) which was reasonably unpopular and ended up losing by a 14 point margin. But most journalists strongly favored it, and reported from that perspective - they didn't want to buy into the "view from nowhere". So a lot of my news-consuming friends had no idea there was honest, well-intentioned opposition to it, and to this day I see people argue the voters must have just been confused.
    - lazulicurio 6y ago
      > For a concrete example, there was a recent initiative in my state (California Prop 16) which was reasonably unpopular and ended up losing by a 14 point margin. But most journalists strongly favored it, and reported from that perspective - they didn't want to buy into the "view from nowhere". So a lot of my news-consuming friends had no idea there was honest, well-intentioned opposition to it, and to this day I see people argue the voters must have just been confused. I think that Rosen would agree that that's bad reporting. Dispensing with the "view from nowhere" isn't about discarding arguments from all but a favored side. It's about discarding "neutral" framing devices that don't inform the reader (such as the "he said/she said" and the "horse race"). "X said A. Y said B" is factual and neutral, but it doesn't help the reader develop a deeper understanding of the parties involved or the topics at hand.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

Rosen's piece seems like it's taking the opposite position, no? Unless I'm missing something, he's arguing that the media is too neutral, too willing to just report what politicians do rather than taking a stance. One of his examples of bad reporting is describing a candidate's campaign strategies without discussing whether the candidate should win. (Although I suppose there's also no reason that 2011 Australia and 2021 USA would necessarily have comparable media landscapes.)

lazulicurio 6y ago
Yes and no. If you read other pieces of his, he goes into more detail about how there's a difference between objectivity and partisan neutrality. He calls partisan neutrality the "view from nowhere"---a framing device that divorces politics from its real-world effects.
- rayiner 6y ago
  A good rejoinder to that is from theories of procedural democracy. A press that is neutral as to partisanship is perceived within the overall political framework as being fair, which has the very positive effect of engendering trust in the institution. It’s the same reason why judges and courts strive to avoid the perception of substantive bias. Politics must be divorced from “its real-world effects” because people of different political persuasions disagree about what real-world effects policies will have (or whether some effects outweigh other effects). A liberal reporting neutral facts about say a proposed immigration policy is still useful to a conservative. A liberal’s take on what they think will be “the real-world effects” of a proposed policy (at least, the ones they care about) will not be useful.
  - lazulicurio 6y ago
    > It’s the same reason why judges and courts strive to avoid the perception of substantive bias. I see the point that you're trying to make, but I'll also turn it on it's head: when a judge makes a ruling does that mean that they were "biased" in favor of the winning party? > Politics must be divorced from “its real-world effects” Does a judge ignore the "real-world effects" of their orders and only consider the behavior of the lawyers? > A liberal’s take on what they think will be “the real-world effects” of a proposed policy (at least, the ones they care about) will not be useful. Is a liberal judge's reasoning in an opinion not valuable to a conservative judge?
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  I get the idea, but I just fundamentally disagree with it. Writers who don't make efforts to maintain partisan neutrality will inevitably leave major gaps in their readers' understanding of the world, because they won't be able to help readers understand perspectives the writers don't personally agree with. For a concrete example, there was a recent initiative in my state (California Prop 16) which was reasonably unpopular and ended up losing by a 14 point margin. But most journalists strongly favored it, and reported from that perspective - they didn't want to buy into the "view from nowhere". So a lot of my news-consuming friends had no idea there was honest, well-intentioned opposition to it, and to this day I see people argue the voters must have just been confused.
  - lazulicurio 6y ago
    > For a concrete example, there was a recent initiative in my state (California Prop 16) which was reasonably unpopular and ended up losing by a 14 point margin. But most journalists strongly favored it, and reported from that perspective - they didn't want to buy into the "view from nowhere". So a lot of my news-consuming friends had no idea there was honest, well-intentioned opposition to it, and to this day I see people argue the voters must have just been confused. I think that Rosen would agree that that's bad reporting. Dispensing with the "view from nowhere" isn't about discarding arguments from all but a favored side. It's about discarding "neutral" framing devices that don't inform the reader (such as the "he said/she said" and the "horse race"). "X said A. Y said B" is factual and neutral, but it doesn't help the reader develop a deeper understanding of the parties involved or the topics at hand.