Season Finale
by admin ~ May 7th, 2008. Filed under: Episodes.Topic: Media objectivity
We’ll discuss the reasons certain media outlets are considered more objective than others. And whether being an objective journalist is an achievable goal in a world of FOXy pundits. And if a journalist were to identify their own bias before they published their stories, would audiences take them more seriously?
We’ve invited two UT Austin students into the booth tonight:
Mechanical Engineering Grad student Jeremy Guillory and Unspecified Business Honors Freshman Undergrad Campbell Sasser to engage in a discussion about how the public perceives the media.
Tune into our season finale tonight on 91.7 FM from 7-8 oclock. You can also listen to our streaming audio on the web at kvrx.org. Click on the listen now button.
Our Summer Season premieres: June 4th at 7PM.
For In The Know, I’m Vanessa Castañeda.
May 7th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
I have always had a problem with “objective” journalism. Journalists can strive to cover all the angles and include various perspectives, but ultimately, the biases of the journalist will be inherently present in their work. If the journalist cares about their subject, they will have an opinion. Through research and interviews, they will strengthen their own beliefs or decide that they were previously uninformed, in which case they will change their opinion. In either case, the journalist is not objective. It’s literally impossible for a person to not include their biases in reporting, and therefore, I think it is both an unreachable goal and folly.
I would rather have journalists and media outlets express their perspectives openly. It would clear up the muddled world of “objective” news where you can’t really believe what a reporter says because you aren’t sure what “side” they’re on. Journalists choose the facts to include in their stories, and if we openly knew what side those facts were supporting, we could actively seek the opposing side to see whom we agree with. I think it would develop a much more “fair and balanced” news world where the public trusts the information they are being presented because they know the intents of the news organization.
Ultimately, however, news organizations are businesses trying to reach the widest possible audience. “Objective” news plays to the most people, and I think it will remain the standard for many years. Underground news outlets are more open in their biases, and I see their roles continuing to grow, particularly on the internet. My fear with these sources is that lazy assholes will only seek opinions that they agree with, and they will completely ignore the other side. I suppose it’s inevitable though, and I’d rather see that then the masses continuing to ignore news completely because it’s dispassionate and removed from the emotions and thoughts of the real world.
May 7th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
The oft-stated and highly desired goal of modern journalism is objectivity, the detached and unprejudiced gathering and dissemination of news and information. Such objectivity can allow people to arrive at decisions about the world and events occurring in it without the journalist’s subjective views influencing the acceptance or rejection of information. Few whose aim is a populace making decisions based on facts rather than prejudice or superstition would argue with such a goal.
It’s a pity that such a goal is impossible to achieve. As long as human beings gather and disseminate news and information, objectivity is an unrealizable dream.
May 7th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
David,
So what are you saying? Journalists should aim for the absolute impossible? I would much rather have them be open about their prejudices rather than continue to hide behind an “objective” cloak.
May 7th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Brian,
Audiences ignoring news altogether sucks for me, a person who intends to have a career in broadcast news journalism. I don’t advocate that method. I do advocate discussion of how to fix a system of publishing that no longer works within the news consumer of 2008’s expectations.
How then do you tell if someone who calls themselves a journalist isn’t really just a political activist? There’s no exam journalists take which defines them as professional or puts them on list which interested parties can reference. Sure there’s the SPJ registry and their code of ethics. But you have to pay to get on that list and their code is toothless.
May 7th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Vanessa,
I would ask: how do you know someone isn’t just a political activist in the current system? There are rumors abound that FOX is conservative, the NY Times is liberal, etc…. The public does not trust these sources for objective journalism now. They may pretend that their audience thinks that they’re objective, but it’s just a dog and pony show.
If people want different sources of news, they will search them out anyway. I would rather engage people than turn them off altogether.
May 7th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
It’s difficult to tell. What about web-only news bureaus? Are blogs the best way to engage communities?
Web-only reports have won awards which is a sign that society has accepted blogs as trustworthy sources of information.
Joshuah Micah Marshall proved to the world that bloggers are not merely slackers venting about Paris Hilton’s latest sexcapades. Although some are, others are enterprising reporters keeping tabs on what the government is doing to ensure it does not abuse its power, an idea that is the heart and soul of journalism’s original intent.
Marshall’s Talkingpointsmemo.com was honored with a George Polk Award for investigating the U.S. attorney firings in his political blog. Marshall’s site also exemplifies a new approach to source transparency and crowd sourcing. He posts raw data on his site for readers to decide what is important, giving them the information they need to incite informed democratic discourse, and making reporter objectivity less of an issue which is a positive thing for journalists. Additionally, this shares the information distillation burden with a willing community of readers, putting power in the form of aggregated knowledge into the hands of the public. Stories which would not have been covered by mainstream media are brought into the light by non conventional journalists through non traditional venues such as online-only publications who have been publicly recognized with a traditional acceptance symbol, an award, as a positive addition to the existing sea of information.
May 7th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
I don’t know if blogs are the best way, but they are a step in the right direction. You didn’t really argue against any of my previous points, so I can’t comment too much. I would argue, however, that very very few people who start blogs are in it for objectivity. Almost all of them have something they are trying to advocate or bring to light.
May 7th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
American Heritage Dictionary defines Objective to be “uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices.”
If they’re just pretending, and no one’s buying it anyways…. why do they continue to successfully publish under the veil of credibility? It begs the question: What does it take for a piece of journalism to be credible?
Why I blog: I’m a broadcast news journalism senior at U.T. Austin who has just finished with finals. I blog to have discussions about things which have piqued my interest in a public forum. That way anyone can comment. It helps pass the time until I take my last class this summer.
May 7th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Brian,
Construct a valid argument, then one might argue against one of your “many”previous points. Relax, smoke a joint, and grab a cheeseburger.
May 7th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
what about CNN pundits and MSNBC pundits? it’s easy to rag on FOXNews - way too easy. they’re all the same. they ask the same questions. they ‘report’ on the same things. there’s little difference.
what do you think of C-SPAN?
May 7th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
David,
You don’t make sense. Congratulations.
May 7th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
News isn’t dying, it’s just changing mediums. Newspapers are losing because the technology is changing, not because they are any worse. It’s going from traditional print to online, and it’s harder for organizations to form an oligarchy or monopoly in the online world. There’s too many options online for traditional outlets to get all of the readership/viewship/etc….
May 7th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
You can’t teach or learn anything in proper context in a minute-thirty. Period.
May 7th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Bin Laden is powerful for hundreds of reasons, don’t blame it on the U.S. alone.
May 7th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Then what is the media’s job, one dude? What’s his name……
May 7th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
And where do they look up the information? from the media
May 7th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Objectivity is neither possible nor important. As long as facts are facts, and journalists are clear on where they stand, people can find information from sources on their own.
People have opinions. It’s natural.
May 7th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Credibility has nothing to do with “being ignored” by some people. If reporters are honest about where they stand, and they are open about it, there is nothing wrong with having bias.
You have two journalists. One says that he supports a conservative tax cut for the rich, and then he/she presents FACTS with their conclusions based on those. The other journalist doesn’t support it because he/she favors no tax for the poor. They then present FACTS with their conclusions. You get facts from both sides, and you know where those facts and chosen viewpoints are coming from. You then decide for yourself with added research.
The only thing objective is a phone book or stack of ALL statistics gathered. Even a single statistic isn’t objective because it’s been chosen out of many. If you really want objectivity, then read the statistics and statistics alone. It’s a journalists job to filter and point out the relevant. Therefore, a journalist cannot be objective.
There is no objective truth. Everyone has their own reality, and has their truth.
May 7th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
How ’bout the 100,000 dead in Myanmar? That sucks, huh?
May 7th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
There is a big difference between a pundit who screams for ratings on TV and an unobjective journalist.
May 7th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Almost every documentary you have ever seen is an example of unobjective journalism, and there are some AWESOME documentaries out there that are considered superior journalism.
May 7th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
I think all of you are over thinking “what is journalism”. A person who tells you that there is a wreck on I-35 is a “journalist”. If you disagree, then what is the difference between that person and an “objective” journalist who only presents the facts?
May 7th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
I made a mistake. That person would be a “reporter”, but what’s the difference between a “journalist” and a “reporter”?
May 7th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
By the way, what’s with the bird picture at the top of the page?
May 7th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Local news is awful.
May 7th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Then that one guy wants a reporter, he doesn’t want a journalist.
He wants, “100,000 people died in Myanmar”, not “100,000 people died in Myanmar because the government didn’t warn its population”.
I want the latter as long as there is someone to explain why the government failed.
May 7th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Are you guys even reading the blog?
May 7th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
I should debate myself. David - I’m guessing is the resident pot head - has not come back.
May 7th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Drudge Report is awesome!
May 7th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
So, don’t read it genius. Or read it, and learn something from a different perspective.
May 7th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
I guess it comes down to apathy vs. bias. What do ya want?
May 7th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Good show, friends.
May 7th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
a poem of sort about the evolution of our media:
“This just in - breaking news
The savages are sitting on our shore
They’re going to eat our babies I’m sure
They’ve got spears and knives
And they want to take our lives
The savages are knocking at our doors
This just in - breaking news
The immigrants are headed for our shores
They’re going to eat our babies I’m sure
They speak another tongue
And they want to see us hung
The immigrants are knocking at our doors
This just in - breaking news
The communists are headed for our shores
They’re going to eat our babies I’m sure
Their color is red
And they want to see us dead
The communists are knocking at our doors
This just in - breaking news
The terrorists are headed for our shores
They’re going to eat our babies I’m sure
They could live next door
Or under your floor
The terrorists are knocking at our doors
This just in - breaking news
The aliens, the aliens, they’re coming from the sky
The aliens, the aliens, they want us all to die
The aliens, the aliens, they’re coming from on high
We can change your state of mind
Tune in and you will find
When you’re afraid, we’ll show you the way
And when you’re afraid, you’ll do all we say
We can change your state of mind
Tune in and you will find
When you’re afraid, we’ll show you the way
And when you’re afraid, you’ll do exactly what we tell you to do.”
They’re going to eat our babies I’m sure
Their color is red
And they want to see us dead
The communists are knocking at our doors
May 7th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Sorry - I messed up the last post…a poem of sort about the evolution of our media:
“This just in - breaking news
The savages are sitting on our shore
They’re going to eat our babies I’m sure
They’ve got spears and knives
And they want to take our lives
The savages are knocking at our doors
This just in - breaking news
The immigrants are headed for our shores
They’re going to eat our babies I’m sure
They speak another tongue
And they want to see us hung
The immigrants are knocking at our doors
This just in - breaking news
The communists are headed for our shores
They’re going to eat our babies I’m sure
Their color is red
And they want to see us dead
The communists are knocking at our doors
This just in - breaking news
The terrorists are headed for our shores
They’re going to eat our babies I’m sure
They could live next door
Or under your floor
The terrorists are knocking at our doors
This just in - breaking news
The aliens, the aliens, they’re coming from the sky
The aliens, the aliens, they want us all to die
The aliens, the aliens, they’re coming from on high
We can change your state of mind
Tune in and you will find
When you’re afraid, we’ll show you the way
And when you’re afraid, you’ll do all we say
We can change your state of mind
Tune in and you will find
When you’re afraid, we’ll show you the way
And when you’re afraid, you’ll do exactly what we tell you to do.”
May 8th, 2008 at 12:52 am
Wow. Live blogging during our show. Love it. Now when I upload the audio for our show, you can read Brian’s running commentary while you listen to it.