Neutrality isn’t the mark of good journalism. Questioning the position of governments is. Asking “why” in the context of how it affects people is.
No news organization is neutral. There’s a story and a length of time for each segment. The editors and anchor decide what to say and how to say it in that allotted time. That forms a message, and that in itself shows bias, intended or otherwise.
Instead of focusing on neutrality, they should focus on objective truth, and stop worry about which party they’re implying to support.
I would say questioning the position of the powers that be is the mark of good journalism, whether that’s government, religion, the wealthy, business, whatever.
Questioning the position of governments is. Asking “why” in the context of how it affects people is.
However, questioning isn’t the same as attacking or undermining.
For example: It’s important for journalists to look for corruption in every government. However, it is an error to expect to find the same amount of corruption in every government; or to inflate the small corruptions of a less-corrupt government to make them sound as important as the large corruptions of a very-corrupt government.
If the Trump administration illustrates one thing, it’s that there actually is a big difference between a good administration and a bad one. Everyone who said “the major parties are the same” or “they’re all just politicians” was shown to be making a serious mistake.
To paraphrase what I’m saying with direct examples, the Fox News and MSNBCs (I’m not ignoring CNN or others) of the world have highly polarized standpoints, both of which claim to be giving us unbiased news.
It’s obvious, however, both are imparting an agenda.
I typically make the analogy of softdrink preferences. Everyone loves their brand. They rarely deviate, even though Coke and Pepsi are both brown, hyper sugary, bad for you, and rot your insides. I.e., we like our specific brand of poison to be “just so.”
Neutrality isn’t the mark of good journalism. Questioning the position of governments is. Asking “why” in the context of how it affects people is.
No news organization is neutral. There’s a story and a length of time for each segment. The editors and anchor decide what to say and how to say it in that allotted time. That forms a message, and that in itself shows bias, intended or otherwise.
Instead of focusing on neutrality, they should focus on objective truth, and stop worry about which party they’re implying to support.
You are so right. Media/government/society has been conflating objectivity with neutrality. Many things are objectively right or wrong.
I would say questioning the position of the powers that be is the mark of good journalism, whether that’s government, religion, the wealthy, business, whatever.
However, questioning isn’t the same as attacking or undermining.
For example: It’s important for journalists to look for corruption in every government. However, it is an error to expect to find the same amount of corruption in every government; or to inflate the small corruptions of a less-corrupt government to make them sound as important as the large corruptions of a very-corrupt government.
If the Trump administration illustrates one thing, it’s that there actually is a big difference between a good administration and a bad one. Everyone who said “the major parties are the same” or “they’re all just politicians” was shown to be making a serious mistake.
Agreed.
To paraphrase what I’m saying with direct examples, the Fox News and MSNBCs (I’m not ignoring CNN or others) of the world have highly polarized standpoints, both of which claim to be giving us unbiased news.
It’s obvious, however, both are imparting an agenda.
I typically make the analogy of softdrink preferences. Everyone loves their brand. They rarely deviate, even though Coke and Pepsi are both brown, hyper sugary, bad for you, and rot your insides. I.e., we like our specific brand of poison to be “just so.”