10-16-2003, 01:36 PM
The difference between theory and practice is profound.
Journalists aren't propagandists.
Bull. They are nowadays, sad to report, to one degree or another.
In theory, every journalist is objective, but every journalist is also human, and every editor has a PoV. With 24/7 news, news as entertainment, and the increasing number of news organs the variety of "slants and biases" presented at the editorial level multiplies. The good news, IMO, of the Information Age is that if one works hard enough at it, one can find varying slants and try to sift through them for a glimmering of fact, absent bias. Anything presented in the various forms of news media should be taken with an enormous grain of salt.
That doesn't mean they have to abandon objectivity, just that they remember their role.
What a crock, the superstar reporter syndrome is the death blow to objectivity. Christian Amanpour never spent an objective day reporting news on CNN in her life. I suggest you look at Al Jaziera and Fox News, and try to tell me that a shred of objectivity exists in either place. Not every news organ has the standards of the CBC, or of a program like The National, and even those folks are not pristine.
I could name you a state where journalism consistently encouraged their troops, and their country's national standing. Here's a hint: in their language, it looks like "CCCP".
There was another nation like that, in about 1945, called Canada. And another called Great Britain. What is your point?
The press of the Free World, never stops raking muck, and in the U.S it is not an organ of The State. The muck raking and fact finding function does not require the demonization of the soldier that you seem to encourage with your comment, although I admit that I may be reading something into that. The biggest thing a free press is supposed to do is uncover the Truth, which is a most elusive, so uncovering as many facts as can be had is a good start.
How it is packaged is where it turns into propaganda, and in the race for ratings, packaging has become far more important. The distillation of complex problems into sound bytes does The Truth no favors, both in the world of officialdom and in the world of reportage. If you want to look at "buzz word covering up true intention" City, head to the East River in New York, a few blocks from Grand Central Station. (That is where the UN is headquartered.)
The more agenda a reporter and an editor brings to the table, the less total value his news holds, as it becomes a story more than news.
Your CCCP illustration forgets the fundamental nature of the official relationship between The State and the News Organs. That was as sloppy a shot as trying to play the Nazi card; you are generally much sharper than that.
Cheers. :D
Journalists aren't propagandists.
Bull. They are nowadays, sad to report, to one degree or another.
In theory, every journalist is objective, but every journalist is also human, and every editor has a PoV. With 24/7 news, news as entertainment, and the increasing number of news organs the variety of "slants and biases" presented at the editorial level multiplies. The good news, IMO, of the Information Age is that if one works hard enough at it, one can find varying slants and try to sift through them for a glimmering of fact, absent bias. Anything presented in the various forms of news media should be taken with an enormous grain of salt.
That doesn't mean they have to abandon objectivity, just that they remember their role.
What a crock, the superstar reporter syndrome is the death blow to objectivity. Christian Amanpour never spent an objective day reporting news on CNN in her life. I suggest you look at Al Jaziera and Fox News, and try to tell me that a shred of objectivity exists in either place. Not every news organ has the standards of the CBC, or of a program like The National, and even those folks are not pristine.
I could name you a state where journalism consistently encouraged their troops, and their country's national standing. Here's a hint: in their language, it looks like "CCCP".
There was another nation like that, in about 1945, called Canada. And another called Great Britain. What is your point?
The press of the Free World, never stops raking muck, and in the U.S it is not an organ of The State. The muck raking and fact finding function does not require the demonization of the soldier that you seem to encourage with your comment, although I admit that I may be reading something into that. The biggest thing a free press is supposed to do is uncover the Truth, which is a most elusive, so uncovering as many facts as can be had is a good start.
How it is packaged is where it turns into propaganda, and in the race for ratings, packaging has become far more important. The distillation of complex problems into sound bytes does The Truth no favors, both in the world of officialdom and in the world of reportage. If you want to look at "buzz word covering up true intention" City, head to the East River in New York, a few blocks from Grand Central Station. (That is where the UN is headquartered.)
The more agenda a reporter and an editor brings to the table, the less total value his news holds, as it becomes a story more than news.
Your CCCP illustration forgets the fundamental nature of the official relationship between The State and the News Organs. That was as sloppy a shot as trying to play the Nazi card; you are generally much sharper than that.
Cheers. :D
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete