I once saw a nature documentary ("Acorn the Nature Nut," with John Acorn) which devoted a half hour to discussing the differences between lizards, salamanders and newts. After discussing the technical differences, Acorn observed that, in the field, when you actually start observing real animals, most people have no troubles telling the three kinds of animals apart (well, two kind -- newts are a sub-type of salamander).
I think modern media is kind of like a couple dozen different kind of lizards, salamanders and newts... Differences that may seem hard to spot in theory are easier to spot in real life.
My impression of media these days is that although it may seem hard to keep track of biases and misdirection and exploitation etc., once you start attempting to keep track of such things, it gets easier. (That book "Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television" in fact provides tips for becoming aware of manipulation techniques, things to practice watching for and such.)
I've thought of a fairly non-controversial example of two bits of modern journalism which I think make my point about different cultures within journalism, about how bias can exist, and how a journalist can aspire to objectivity. Lurkers in the thread can read for themselves if they're interested in this stuff, to see the difference. Both of these books are written by experienced reporters (each has spent more than 15 years doing journalism). Oddly, one is a European living in America, and the other is an American who lives in Europe.
The book "Short Circuit," by Michael Mewshaw is an entertaining and very detailed view of a year on the pro tennis circuit. Mewshaw attends lots of events -- many with press credentials, one or two without), and he speaks to lots of insiders and paints a very vivid picture of what happens on court and off. This book, however, has a very heavy bias. The reporter believes that the businessmen running tennis are mostly low-rent people. Toward the end of the tour, the people running the game _pull_ his press credentials and he doesn't hesitate to indulge in some name calling and unflattering personal evaluations. It's fun stuff, but clearly the writer has an agenda. (This is the American living in Europe.)
The book "The Courts of Babylon : Tales of Greed and Glory in a Harsh New World of Professional Tennis," by Peter Bodo has a much seemier title, but is written in an amazingly different style. Bodo also paints a detailed and vivid picture of the world of pro tennis based on meetings and interviews with insiders (he's a vertern reporter from "Tennis" magazine -- a European living in America). But he is amazingly even-handed in his approach to events and people. (Indeed, he devotes a chapter to Born Again Christians in tennis and, although he speaks of his own bias opening the chapter, his coverage of the topic is like a textbook example of how a person can recognize his own point-of-view, recognize that others have points-of-view, and do a great job of stepping back from all that subjectivity and create a great account which seems to be a reasonably objective and fair assessment of the overall reality of at hand.)
Sorry to go on at such length here, but I wanted to give specific example of objective vs. subjective journalism. Mark W.
Sorry to go on at such length here
--but how can you speak of apology when you have taken my discussion seriously, and given serious thought to my opinion, and your own? By no means! Mark, two things--first, that the tenor of your reply reminds me of--me. Do you have to edit and reedit to come out with a post that you can bear to reread after posting? I do. Second, it seems to me that you are pretty close to making my own point when you say that the writer who declares his own I have a thing about the use of the term "bias". Because ironically, I see it as journalism's favored critique. As long as you are speaking of "bias" you are playing on their home field--for they then can assume a posture of high dudgeon that you have the effrontery to accuse them of being unethical. Seeing that coming, I prefer to use the morally neutral term "perspective." They are after all entitled by the First Amendment to have a perspective--the actual legitimate beef against them is that, having a blatantly obvious perspective hiding in plain sight, they have the gall to claim to be "objective." And to sniff that, for example, "Rush Limbaugh is not a journalist." No, he's not--because he declares up front that he is conservative, and thus predictably will be closer to the truth than the "objective journalist" will be.bias perspective up front is the one whose writing is less, rather than more, tendentious. The one who affects to have no perspective is the one who is insufferably self-righteous. And tendentious.