StubbornFacts
Stubborn Facts
Stubborn Facts

Navigation

User login

Subscribe via RSS

Resources

The latest from our partner, the PoliGazette

Blog Roll

So, What To Make Of All This Then?

Submitted by Rafique on Tue, 07/20/2010 - 11:58am

A good start, in trying to cut through the hysteria and bluster, over the JournoList revelations, from Philip Bump, at Mediaite:

The takeaway for today: a group of journalists who have a tacit bias seek to undermine a narrative they disagree with. But that takeaway is as much about the Daily Caller and Breitbart as it is about the subject of the original article. Those who think that there wasn’t the same email back-and-forth between Caller staff and Breitbart as there was between those who signed the letter the Caller criticizes are, I’m afraid, a bit naive. If those emails came to light, what should we think of them?

And that brings us to the key question in this tempest. Which is worse: a journalist who strives to be objective but is seen as partisan – or one who strives to be partisan and is seen as objective?

Right.

Now, please don't misunderstand--I'm not defending any of this. The whole JournoList enterprise seems to me to have been flawed from the start--an almost self-parody of entrenched liberal groupthink journalism with a clear political agenda. This sort of behavior ought to be opposed by both sides, and the whole thing smells foul. My only point is that we ought not take things beyond what the facts show, or in the interest of combating agenda-driven journalism, place much stock in the analysis of those who have a clear-record of agenda-driven journalism.

Or, as an unlikely source puts it:

I'm glad Journo-list is over. It should never have been begun. I know many of its members are good and decent and fair-minded writers. But socialized groupthink is not the answer to what's wrong with the media. It's what's already wrong with the media.

ADDED: This is what I'm talking about. I don't think I've ever seen such a hatchet-job in quite some time, with the embrassing and shameful enabling by the USDA, and the White House. Shame on Breitbart, the NAACP, Vilsack, and the White House. Shame.

There's no doubt in my mind

There's no doubt in my mind that a right-wing equivalent to Journo-List exists. Just as when I get pulled over for speeding, I am fairly certain that there are lots of other people on the highway who were also exceeding the speed limit. But, in this instance, it's the "progressives" who got caught deliberately attempting to undermine journalistic integrity and neutrality in order to advance their personal biases. Trying to innoculate themselves with the argument "Well, the right does it, too!" isn't going to fly with me any more than a judge is going to let me off the hook when I cry "But lots of people speed!" What they were doing-- in my opinion-- is a sign of everything that's wrong with the media.

The Sherrod story demonstrates why being patient, cautious, inquisitive, and deliberate in your decisions is a desirable trait not just for government officials but non-government opinion leaders, as well. Unfortunately, in today's over-charged environment, few bother to check the facts and gain context of the moment; everyone just reaches for their first gut reaction in a race to "do something" -- why should we be surprised when the result is mistake-laden?

--Bobby

Exactly Bobby-- the argument that bad journalism is OK because

"the other side does it," ought to be rejected by both sides. The Journoliters were totally wrong. Breitbart's actions were reprehensible. Neither of these ought to be defended, or excused away.

The Sherrod story demonstrates why being patient, cautious, inquisitive, and deliberate in your decisions is a desirable trait not just for government officials but non-government opinion leaders, as well. Unfortunately, in today's over-charged environment, few bother to check the facts and gain context of the moment; everyone just reaches for their first gut reaction in a race to "do something" -- why should we be surprised when the result is mistake-laden?

Yep.

the untaken opportunity

There's an ongoing untaken opportunity here, for journalists to truly make a good faith effort to be objective, and establish themselves as a trusted reporting brand.

Fox noticed the opportunity long ago, but all they did was use it as a marketing slogan: fair and balanced. As we know, they're not. They just added a thumb to the other side of the scale. At this point, more journalism is yellow than not. We should all operate from this presumption.

We have no choice these days as informations consumers to be active editors. Until proven otherwise, I presume every reporter has some axe to grind.

And Bobby? Amen to patience. If only more folks understood that patience is a skill, and can only be developed by practicing it when it's hard to do so.

Recent comments

Advertisements
StubbornFacts.us does not endorse the content of any advertisement

Featured Movie

Syndicate

Syndicate content

Who's online

There are currently 2 users and 6 guests online.

Online users

  • Tyler359
  • bucyrus