Comments on: Disturbing news…

By: blindman

blindman — Thu, 05 Aug 2004 20:15:30 +0000

objectivity exists only after it has been lost.

you can quote me on that.

By: the chutry experiment

the chutry experiment — Thu, 05 Aug 2004 11:28:28 +0000

Journalism and Rhetoric

Few bloggers out there offer better sustained rhetorical analysis of the media than Andrew Cline in his blog, Rhetorica. With fall semester kicking into gear, I’m still trying to think about some of the questions pertaining to this year’s election…

By: daveb

daveb — Tue, 03 Aug 2004 19:13:19 +0000

As a non-journalist, I see the fairness stance as a distinct problem in the reporting of events by the various forms of media. The reporting becomes an either/or process; one side-pro and the other-anti of whatever the issue is for the day. Sublety and the other various shades of grey that surround that issue vanish and are not discussed even on the second day. The reaction to Mr VandeHei’s remark/question was noticed not because of ‘liberal bias’ but because he was sceptical of the comments made by Mr Racicot and had the information availbible to him to challenge his remarks. I see this as an essential for good journalism (& other professions) that one prepares beforehand. Scepticism seems to be an essential part of being a good journalist and that as you say-not just daily stenography from press conferences.

By: acline

acline — Mon, 02 Aug 2004 10:34:05 +0000

MWS…as a matter of fact, I do You’ve asked a big, open-ended question. So rather than attempt an answer here, I’ll keep it in mind as I write this week.

I think you’re heading in the ‘right’ direction. I think your ideas idea is worthy, but problematic for exactly the reason you state And my initial answer would be exactly the conclusion you reach–an emphasis on second-day reporting.

But I’ll have more to say…

By: MWS

MWS — Mon, 02 Aug 2004 10:20:47 +0000

You make a very good point about how journalists should be “custodians of fact” but that structural biases prevent that. But how about something a little more complicated, ie, not custodians of “fact” but of “ideas.” What I mean is that, unless you are a political junkie or versed in a particular field, you are unlikely to be aware of the sources or assumptions behind ideological positions. For example, I think that much of Kerry’s foreign policy positions are based, to at least some extent, on the realist positions espoused by his father, a former diplomat. I understand what the concept of realism in foreign policy entails because I am interested and fairly versed in the literature. It seems to me that, to really be politically useful, journalists need to present their readers a deeper understanding of the assumptions, ideological and otherwise, behind particular statements or policies. The problem I see with this is that in a lot of cases, this might require more knowledge than a reporter has. As I see it, current political reporting discounts the importance of ideas in politics because of its emphasis on “facts”, ie statements from candidates, external events, etc. This tends to make people think that ideas are not important and are just facades for other agendas (and in some cases they probably are). In my opinion, though, it would be useful if journalists were able to discuss the ideas involved. I guess this would involve more of what you called “second day reporting” because it would require the journalist to understand and, I think, respect–even if he or she doesn’t agree–with the underlying idea. I frankly don’t see a lot of this. Any thoughts on this?

By: Stumax.com

Stumax.com — Mon, 02 Aug 2004 09:44:33 +0000

Nothing to See Here – Our Myopic Press edition

Slashdot reminded us of an amusing piece of futurism from a couple of years ago. Paul Ford’s August 2009: How Google beat Amazon and Ebay to the Semantic Web is an attempt to describe the features and benefits of a new type of Web, one that helps…