September 7, 2004
What are the facts?…
To complain about “ties” between 527s and the campaigns is to complain about the obvious. Of course there are “ties” in the sense that the members of 527s will necessarily be political operatives and party loyalists. And these operatives are necessarily clued in to a campaign’s message machine–unless they are clueless, in which case the 527s won’t be able to raise the money necessary to operate.
None of this would be a problem if the press would operate as custodians of fact, i.e. rigorously fact-check all political ads and report the results as news using nouns (e.g. “lie” or “spin”) that accurately identify the kind of information disseminated in the ads.
Posted by acline | September 7, 2004 | Posted in: Main |
“..if the press would operate as custodians of fact, i.e. rigorously fact-check all political ads and report the results as news…”
Count me among the perennially confused here. Apparently this is still a novel idea, but _why_ is it novel? Has the “journalist as custodian of fact” responsibility historically not been stressed in journalists’ educations? (do they learn it, but just not apply it?) Or is this a new role, which previously was ?considered less important? ?assumed to be obvious? ???? or is this role vastly more important now than it was, due to newsmakers’ having learned how to manipulate the press (i.e. an arms race is underway, and the press is not winning it)?
(and apologies if this has been brought up before - some of us have thick skulls)
As objectivity as a process gave way to objectivity as a philosophical stance (fairness bias is one result), the idea that reporters can learn the facts, state the facts, and call a liar a liar–objectively!–have faded. There are many other reasons, too, but this is the one I carp about the most.
I’m off to class. More later…