3 ms·

I love this. It's a direct contradiction of the old myth that people want "objective" journalism (whatever that's supposed to mean). People want journalism. The

I love this. It's a direct contradiction of the old myth that people want "objective" journalism (whatever that's supposed to mean). People want journalism. They want an editorial angle that's relevant to the current debate. They want viewpoints and edge. They don't want some sort of detached dead "neutral" tone that just reports facts without taking a stance. I'm not saying that's what WaPo was doing anyway, but it's the rationale used to defend blocking the Harris endorsement.

ant6n 2y ago
Or perhaps a neutral viewpoint could still consider many problems/issues with one particular candidate. Perhaps being objective is more important than „not taking sides“ in an unbalanced contest.
dingnuts 2y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- throwway120385 2y ago
  Or that people who aren't likely Trump voters don't want to give money to an organization that eventually pays out on someone who will pay into Trump's campaign. It doesn't have to have anything to do with bias. In fact you're the one who is making it about someone wanting their biases to be confirmed. Kind of like not eating Chik Fil-A.
standardUser 2y ago
Reporting should be objective. Editorial opinion, by it's very definition, should not be. Many people seem to not grasp this fundamental aspect of journalism.
- PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
  > Reporting should be objective Reporting cannot be objective. The most basic reason is the framing problem: deciding what facts about the world are relevant to the story being told. The things left in, the things left out. How much history do you include? How great is the geographic scope? Whose grievances matter, and whose do not? Every decision you are forced to make about such questions moves you, inch by millimeter, away from any conventional definition of "objective reporting".
  - standardUser 2y ago
    Absolutely. I should have said "strive to be objective" as I did in another comment. And the solution is to have more news sources, more organizations, each with their own set of biases and perspectives that, when taken together, offer people a more diverse view of the world and what's happening in it. But we've been moving in the opposite direction, with media outlets being bought up or going out of business, while others become nakedly hyper-partisan with little reporting and tons of ultra-biased opinion. Many "news" sources these days just make shit up and post straight up lies and conspiracy theories. It's a bad scene. Which is why so many people are pissed to see the Washington Post, one of the last bastions of reputable journalism, succumbing to political pressure.

ant6n 2y ago

Or perhaps a neutral viewpoint could still consider many problems/issues with one particular candidate. Perhaps being objective is more important than „not taking sides“ in an unbalanced contest.

dingnuts 2y ago

[flagged]

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
throwway120385 2y ago
Or that people who aren't likely Trump voters don't want to give money to an organization that eventually pays out on someone who will pay into Trump's campaign. It doesn't have to have anything to do with bias. In fact you're the one who is making it about someone wanting their biases to be confirmed. Kind of like not eating Chik Fil-A.

standardUser 2y ago

Reporting should be objective. Editorial opinion, by it's very definition, should not be. Many people seem to not grasp this fundamental aspect of journalism.

PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
> Reporting should be objective Reporting cannot be objective. The most basic reason is the framing problem: deciding what facts about the world are relevant to the story being told. The things left in, the things left out. How much history do you include? How great is the geographic scope? Whose grievances matter, and whose do not? Every decision you are forced to make about such questions moves you, inch by millimeter, away from any conventional definition of "objective reporting".
- standardUser 2y ago
  Absolutely. I should have said "strive to be objective" as I did in another comment. And the solution is to have more news sources, more organizations, each with their own set of biases and perspectives that, when taken together, offer people a more diverse view of the world and what's happening in it. But we've been moving in the opposite direction, with media outlets being bought up or going out of business, while others become nakedly hyper-partisan with little reporting and tons of ultra-biased opinion. Many "news" sources these days just make shit up and post straight up lies and conspiracy theories. It's a bad scene. Which is why so many people are pissed to see the Washington Post, one of the last bastions of reputable journalism, succumbing to political pressure.