[RandyRep]

Bartley doesn't go far enough in this article.

He should observe that ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN and NPR use the NYTimes and WashPost as their guiding lights - the editorial views of all of these are basically the same, and they share writers, reporters, producers, etc among themselves.

We will have "free" and "objective" journalism when we have diversity of opinion, not uniformity of opinion for our broadcast news. At present, we have to rely on talk radio and Fox News (to some extent) to hear differing views.

[gaijin]

Let us calmly discuss the glories of media objectivity after the current media establishment is destroyed.

We don't have to stridently call for this, though, you know.

With the wind at our backs, we just have to patiently keep doing what we're doing and WAIT.

[foreverfree]

bump

[Timesink]

This is the nascent Mainstream Media Shenanigans ping list. Please freepmail me to be added or dropped.
Please note this will likely become a high-volume list.
Also feel free to ping me if you come across a thread you would think worthy of the ping list. I can't catch them all!

[Helms]

"The BBC and New York Times scandals show that "objectivity" is dead.."

One the the BBC's core tenets:

First, there is distrust in the concept of absolute and objective truth. ‘Truth’ is viewed as contextual, situational, and conditional.

IE, "truth" as whatever suits the current motive.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

The opinion of the press corps tends toward consensus because of an astonishing uniformity of viewpoint. Certain types of people want to become journalists, and they carry certain political and cultural opinions. This self-selection is hardened by peer group pressure. No conspiracy is necessary; journalists quite spontaneously think alike. The problem comes because this group-think is by now divorced from the thoughts and attitudes of readers. To take politics as a test, in 1992, a sample of top Washington reporters and editors voted 89% to 7% for Bill Clinton over George H.W. Bush.

This is a Deux ex Machina argument--all journalists have the same politics, because they were born that way. Sorry, but more explanation is needed. And forthcoming from your interpid commentator, as follows:

The businesses which make money in journalism do so by following the rules of the business. People who don't want to follow those rules don't decide to become journalists--or go to work for newspapers which fail because they do not attract enough attention. The ones that attract enough attention to be able to charge enough advertising rate to be able to survive, do so by following the rules.

The joker is that the rules:

No news is good news, because good news isn't news, and

Man Bites Dog makes a better story than Dog Bites Man

mean that the news is atypical of reality in general, and is predominantly about things which call into question the institutions upon which we depend. The news as defined by commercial viability is inherently slanted to the idea of the need for change. People who like the job of writing such stories are--surprise!--opposed to conservatism.

Why Broadcast Journalism is Unnecessary and Illegitimate

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Though an opinion journalist myself, I'm certainly not against attempts at objectivity.

There is absolutely nothing to be said against "attempts at objectivity."

Indeed I believe the ethic is a more powerful influence than disgruntled readers and viewers often seem to believe; it's simply not true that journalists conspire to slant the news in favor of their friends and causes. Yet it's also true that in claiming "objectivity" the press often sees itself as a perfect arbiter of ultimate truth. This is a pretension beyond human capacity.

It is not the attempt at objectivity but the presumtion to believe in--let alone claim--objectivity for one's own thought and writing which turnss entirely understandable and inherent individual perspective into a flaming bias.

[Billthedrill]

...it's simply not true that journalists conspire to slant the news in favor of their friends and causes.

The issue isn't conspiracy, it's slant, and whether they meet in secret or just simply do it is irrelevant. It happens. It is persistent, blatant, and unapologetic. It is also, on occasion, a deliberate policy at least according to this observer.

The bottom line is that with the advent of multiple alternatives the market will rule, and if blatant bias is as unpalatable to the audience as it appears to be, the Times and the BBC will end up empty-handed and wondering what happened. It's their problem.