Posted on 11/26/2018 11:10:53 PM PST by Olog-hai
Looks like you’re using the liberals’ nonsequiturs. Reporting can indeed be objective; to say otherwise is to deny the existence of facts and objective truth. It isn’t about the government stepping in to assure objectivity; of course, when they do step in, they destroy what little objectivity may be gleaned from the “news” out there.
As far as the press credentials debacle, take note that the kritarchy that isn’t supposed to have power to jump in and protect “journalists” and create fake “rights” for them is indeed doing so.
Indeed it’s how Obamacare died.
Maybe someone should "fact check" the Associated Pinheads. Guaranteed that most of their stories are multiple Pinocchio's or, more likely, multiple Bozos.
As you’re so educated then you’re aware that press credentials are granted by government agencies as to whom can be given access to press briefings. Yes, we all have the right to be reporters and to write at speak our beliefs and offer commentary (for now) and it’s even more important today to do so as certain groups and individuals are claiming themselves the sole arbiters of truth and fact and trying to silence any opposition.
And yes, there ARE objective sources. That’s the point of JOURNALISM - to log and report the events (that is, to journal) of the day in a FACTUAL matter.
As far as ‘Fact Checks” being ‘official’ enough to show in a google search result, one has to be a member of the Intl Fact Checking Network which was started by the Poynter Institute, which was started by the left leaning Tampa Bay Times.
Board members of the IFCN, that are from the USA, are someone from politifact (which was also started by the Tampa Bay Times) and wapo.
Yeah, “fact checking” is pretty much a leftist circle jerk.
https://ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org/board
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poynter_Institute
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampa_Bay_Times#PolitiFact.com
No one can know that they are objective. You can try to be objective - an effort which would have to begin with the assumption that you are not objective, in order for you to take seriously the reasons why were you stand might depend on where you sit. You and even claim to be trying to be objective, if in fact you are making a good-faith effort. But to claim actually to be objective is to reveal your own subjectivity in all its “splendor.”An example of someone seriously trying to be objective was when Antonin Scalia remarked that whenever he found himself liking a decision too much, he would go back and reexamine his logic, looking for his own subjectivity corrupting the logic of his ruling.
A contrary example would be just about any journalist, claiming that “all journalists are objective” (including himself) - all the while knowing that as long as “if it bleeds, it leads” remains true, journalism will always be negative. Only a cynic could assert that “negativity is objectivity.”
Ping to my #26.And yes, there ARE objective sources. That’s the point of JOURNALISM - to log and report the events (that is, to journal) of the day in a FACTUAL matter.
Half the truth is often a great lie. - Benjamin FranklinAs long as that is true, and as long as you don’t report everything that happens, objectivity will be a laudable goal - not a guarantee.
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.