Posted on 10/20/2009 10:10:52 AM PDT by TigerLikesRooster
Journalism Should Own Its Liberalism
And then manage it, challenge it, and account for it
By Thomas Edsall
The floodtide of e-mails and letters to New York Times ombudsman Clark Hoyt after his September 27 column on the paper’s failure to promptly investigate the conservative-initiated stories about Van Jones and ACORN testifies to the failure of the mainstream press to deal with the issue of liberal bias.
“Many readers were not buying [the] contention that liberal bias had nothing to do with the slow response to ACORN and, before that, to the resignation of Van Jones, a White House aide,” Hoyt wrote this past Sunday.
Hoyt quoted correspondence from angry Times readers: “‘So, beside Jill Abramson, Bill Keller and Barack Obama, were you able to find anyone, not resident in a cemetery, who was so tuned out?’ asked Charles Harkins of Spartanburg, S.C. Jerry Komar of Collingswood, N.J., charged that Times editors ‘hoped the story would blow over. They were caught in their own web of bias.’”
(Excerpt) Read more at cjr.org ...
embrace your inner Mao
This ain’t activism.
Is that your inner Mao-Mao or Mau-Mau? Double your pleasure, double your fun.
The author, Thomas B. Edsall of HuffPo (and formerly the Washington Compost), wants journalists to own up to their own Liberalism. However, Edsall doesn’t own up to HIS. A quick search reveals that Edsall is registered with the Democratic Party in DC.
“Journalism Should Own Its Liberalism, and then manage it, challenge it, and account for it.”
Say what? These are liberal arts flunkies not business majors! They have no idea what you are talking about.
Noted.
The main stream press is liberal.
but... they have a professional commitment to objectivity.
Conservative media have no such commitment.
MSM are so objective they bend over backward so as not to the labeled biased that they are almost conservative.
Liberals make good journalists because of their empathy.
Conservative ideology does not make good journalist.
As I read through the essay I actually thought for a time it was satire. Then the truth slowly emerged: this elitist fop and his prep school colleagues actually believe conservatives are the caricatures he describes.
To me this was his most outrageous comment: "There are many intellectually impressive conservative advocates and opinion leaders, but the ideology does not seem to make for good journalists. In contrast, any examination of the nation’s top reporters over the past half-century would show that, in the main, liberals do make good journalists in the tradition of objective news coverage."
Maybe that's because any journalist with conservative credentials to the right of David Brooks simply won't be published in the Leftist media!
"There are many intellectually impressive conservative advocates and opinion leaders, but the ideology does not seem to make for good journalists. In contrast, any examination of the nation’s top reporters over the past half-century would show that, in the main, liberals do make good journalists . . ."
Target-rich environment. But, IMHO, this is actually correct - you simply have to understand what it means. The fundamental unexamined assumption is that journalism is what is important. Why would that be so?Journalism is the "church of what's happening now," and is inherently superficial. The saying, "There's nothing more worthless than yesterday's newspaper" is true - and that just goes to show how much today's newspaper is worth. The Bible is worth as much today as it was yesterday, and will be worth tomorrow - yet today's newspaper will be worthless tomorrow. And you are surprised that conservatives don't do journalism?
". . . in the tradition of objective news coverage."Now here is where it really gets rich. To really discuss the author's fallacious perspective in this regard, let's quote him more extensively:[journalists are a pack of liberals] but, and this is a mega-but, even though the mainstream media are by this measure liberal, ending the discussion at this point would be a major disservice to both the press and the public. While the personnel tend to share an ideological worldview, most have a personal and professional commitment to the objective presentation of information, a commitment that is not shared by the conservative media.Give this writer credit, he urges that journalists admit their "liberal" perspective (tho he presumably would never occur to him to put "liberal" is scare quotes when, in a tradition started by journalism in the 1920s, it is used as a euphemism for the opposite of classical liberalism). But the conservative media generally have no choice but to declare their perspective rather than claiming to be objective. A conservative effectively says, "I'm a conservative, and you can take that into account in evaluating my analysis." The (liberal) journalist says, "I'm an objective journalist, and this is what is true." Or, as Walter Cronkite (in his retirement a very "liberal" commentator) famously put it, ". . . and that's the way it is . . ."Which of those formulations is humble, and which is arrogant? The conservative says, "In my opinion," and the "liberal" journalist says that after he has spoken there is no room for argument. To proclaim yourself to be objective is to mark yourself as arrogant and hopelessly subjective. The conservative writes for the present and the future, so he wants to be right and to subject his thoughts to scrutiny and debate. The "objective" journalist writes for the very immediate present, and changes the subject at his own discretion whenever events overtake what the journalist said yesterday. Considering that the journalist has a finite bandwidth to fill, and the world is such a big place, no one could expect the journalist to tell all the truth. And yet - as Benjamin Franklin put it - "Half the truth is often a great lie." Even if everything a journalist says is true, there must be room for varying opinions as to what is actually important. And this the self-proclaimed "objective" journalist effectively denies.
The difference between the "objective" journalist and the "conservative" commentator is the difference between the sophist and the philosopher of ancient Greece. The sophist argued from the assumption of his own wisdom, and became famous for specious, self-serving arguments. The philosopher rebutted the sophist by saying, "I do not claim to be wise, but I love wisdom and want to hear your facts and your logic." The journalist is a hit-and-run artist who insinuates his point and then changes the subject.
BTTT
The issue is not really whether or not liberal journalists are objective, although it is easy to make the case that they are not. The real issue is the deliberate omission of any news articles that support conservative views in preference for liberal articles that support liberal views.
Deliberate picking and choosing favorable liberal articles and picking and choosing unfavorable conservative articles can still both be reported objectively. The result is still biased reporting because of the systemic system of liberal editors deciding to run favorable liberal articles and unfavorable conservative articles.
This is the result of the in-bred liberal bias in journalism today. There are only so many news stories that can be printed in a newspaper, magazine or broadcast on tv or radio. Purposely running pro-liberal articles and anti-conservative articles still results in bias regardless or not if the article is objectively reported.
Liberals never get this distinction. They only look at each article and say if they objectively reported it, there is no bias. They never look at the totality of articles that are presented across their entire news format. If they did they would see the overwheliming liberal bias.
The issue is not really whether or not liberal journalists are objective, although it is easy to make the case that they are not.
To be sure.The real issue is the deliberate omission of any news articles that support conservative views in preference for liberal articles that support liberal views.
"Articles that support liberal views" promote the idea that the news is important - and that reporters are important.Deliberate picking and choosing favorable liberal articles and picking and choosing unfavorable conservative articles can still both be reported objectively. The result is still biased reporting because of the systemic system of liberal editors deciding to run favorable liberal articles and unfavorable conservative articles.
Ping to my #10
...Of course he just had to get his digs in at FOX, but at least he's willing to concede there is a Liberal bias, and that as he stated in the article, the Elitists despise those of us who are not Chardonnay drinking, New York Times reading, or Manhattan, Beltway, or L.A. cocktail party attending sycophants who have their noses so far up politicians' backsides it's a wonder when one of the pols belches a journalist doesn't come out the other end.
late bump!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.