Is public journalism, journalism? (1996) | THINK TANK

Posted in Home Furnishings, Local journalism, Uncategorized on June 17th, 2020
Tags: , , , ,

Ben Wattenberg: hello, Im Ben Wattenberg. In contemporary years, newspapers have prided themselveson the Joe Friday institution of journalism: just the facts, maam. However some thing new is now stated to be on thescene. It goes by using distinctive names, like public journalism,civic participation, neighborhood journalism, conclusive journalism. It doesn’t matter what you call it, this journalismsets out to head beyond just the tips and tries to form the agenda. Query: is this new? Is this a liberal trick? Joining us variety through the conflict and consensusare Jane Eisner, editorial page editor of The Philadelphia Inquirer, which recentlywon the Gold Medal from the countrywide association of Opinion page Editors; Steve Cuozzo, executiveeditor of the brand new York submit and writer of Its Alive: How Americas Oldest NewspaperCheated dying and Why It concerns; James Fishkin, chairman of the division of governmentat the institution of Texas and creator of The Voice of the persons; and Jodie Allen, Washingtoneditor of the net journal Slate and former editor of the Outlook part on the WashingtonPost.The topic before this condominium: Is public journalismjournalism? The Philadelphia Inquirers new editorialpolicies mirror the objectives of public journalism. In a controversial sequence, two Inquirer reporterscritiqued US monetary policy. The title of the sequence explains its thrust:the us: Who Stole the Dream? The authors expressed strong and stronglydisputed opinions within the information section on web page 1. They proposed, among other things, highertariffs, immigration restrictions, and raising taxes on the rich. Different aspects of public journalism includea heavier reliance on public participation via center of attention companies, reader polls, readereditorials, newspaper-subsidized civic corporations, and candidate forums. All of it sounds excellent, however critics say votersend up spoon-fed with the views of the establishment media. For illustration, in North Carolina, led by TheCharlotte Observer, the essential media used polls and center of attention businesses in an try to shape theagenda and then drive the insurance policy of the Senate crusade.Sen. Jesse Helms refused to play alongside, sayinghe must be allowed to run on his report, for excellent or for in poor health. Jane Eisner, public journalism is aterribly amorphous phrase. What are we speakme about? Jane Eisner: well, it is vitally amorphous, andI think thats some of the problems with it. So i can only answer what it method to me asan editorial page editor. Ben Wattenberg: k. Jane Eisner: Its really quite simple. I think it just means, from my point of view,involving readers far more on the pages of my editorial pages, whether or not thats in editorials,op-ed pieces, or letters.And to do this, I consider you particularly have toreach out to individuals who would not often write to us. , now not everybody has a press agentor a fax computer and might send flawlessly structured, 800-word op-ed portions to primary newspapers. And its to these persons, whether or not theyreyounger or disenfranchised or just dont suppose that had been focused on what theythink, these are the people that we are achieving out to. Ben Wattenberg: Professor James Fishkin, whatis it all about? James Fishkin: Public journalism? Good, Im a social scientist. Im now not a journalist. But Ive gotten involved in a number of projectsthat humans time period public journalism, so i assume Im an recommend of it, and Idiscuss it in my e-book.Public journalism, I consider, means journalisticinstitutions take some accountability for making a public. By using a public, I mean residents who can talkto every different concerning the issues, are told concerning the problems, and whose voice is facilitatedin a way. So it additionally means airing the peoples agendaon the problems, not simply horse race of the campaign, but the problems that individuals reallywant to listen to about, no longer just tabloid journalism, whos snoozing with whom or whatever, butissues that honestly affect peoples lives, as usual humans construe that. Now, its very elaborate to pull off, and myinterest in that is in anything referred to as deliberative polling, which represents what the publicwould suppose concerning the issues in the event that they grew to be engaged.Ben Wattenberg: Which you did on PBS earlierthis 12 months. James Fishkin: sure, yes. Ive now been involved in eight deliberativepolls, some countrywide, on PBS with the presidential candidates, some in different countries. Ben Wattenberg: All correct, good come backto that in just a minute. Jodie Allen, what do you suppose of these items? Jodie Allen: well, I consider its being oversold. I believe that whats good in it isnt newand whats new in it isnt necessarily just right. Without doubt, its just right for a newspaper tobe in contact with the people that its serving, to head out and do excellent reporting on whatsreally concerning them each locally, but in addition nationally, and thats a threat when wesimply get too much hand-protecting of dont you feel dangerous in these days. And i worry so that I dont think that thatis new. If youre a good newspaper, youre outthere attaining into your group, seeing whats going on, following it. However what worries me is that you just do see thismove within the news pages, now not on the editorial pages, however in the case of The PhiladelphiaInquirer, correct on the information pages, where crusades are being run pretending to be news, obviouslywith powerful and selective selections of the information, or in some circumstances, fully ballot pushed andcutting the politicians out of the political system and rather turning the manage overto the pollsters.Ben Wattenberg: Steve, he mentioned the magicword tabloid, and he did not say in it in a pleasant manner. You’re the executive editor of the worldsgreatest tabloid. Steve Cuozzo: And champion of tabloid values. Ben Wattenberg: right. Steve Cuozzo: Which I define in a somewhatdifferent way from normal definitions. Tabloid journalism is journalism pushed bya centered awareness on contributors as particular from the workings of associations. So even supposing we cover associations, such asgovernment or the Federal Reserve, we tend to take action from the factor of with the perspectivethat theyre run via character guys and females. However my experience of public journalism is this:that in NY city, an extraordinarily distinct and particular market, we observe a very differentform of public journalism altogether, which consists in having three every day newspapers,at the least 5 television stations broadcast, plus cable channels, and probably a half of dozenodd weekly magazines, month-to-month magazines. And all and sundry, with the intention to communicate, wake up everymorning and scream our brains out about the whole lot, every from a different perspective and a differentideological every pursuing, kind of blatantly, an additional ideological agenda.Out of that cacophony of voices emerges somethingresembling actuality or reality. Ben Wattenberg: what is all this entire thingthats going on? I imply, you’ve all these vivid young journalismmajors in tuition and bright younger journalists talking about this wonderful new factor andraising high this commonplace. Jane Eisner: good, I think theres anotherelement to it, and it pertains to what Jim mentioned, which is that I believe there are manyof us who do think that we’ve got a accountability to create a safe area for a deliberativedialogue, that it is a part of our roles to do this. Sick give you one illustration. Ben Wattenberg: A risk-free area for a deliberativedialogue. Jane Eisner: Mmhmm. Its not talk radio.Its now not persons yelling at each and every other. However its not also what typical op-edpages were like. For illustration, our newspaper will do what itsalways finished, which is recommend candidates on this election cycle, and we will be able to interviewthe candidates and study them and talk to people about them and dissect their files. But in some circumstances, were additionally going outand meeting with voters from these districts. Ben Wattenberg: Why isnt what the new YorkPost does group journalism, public journalism? Jane Eisner: Im particularly no longer very hung upon these labels. I dont to find them very adequate at all. , I simply feel its just right journalismwith a slightly broader framework than what weve had previously.Jodie Allen: but I suppose theres a big differencebetween what Jane does on her editorial page, where I believe wed all agree thats theplace the place opinions should be, and the predominant thrust of the new, quote, unquote, publicjournalism, which apparently sufficient, the American Journalism evaluate says is notso preferred among younger reporters, but among older publishers looking for approaches to makemoney. But it’s quite yet another factor for frontpages to move out and have polls finished or to head out, as in one case, and inform all theirreporters to talk to four persons, which seemed to be a as a substitute small pattern, and are available backand make a decision, as is the case in North Carolina proper now, what the total range of issuesthat are going to be blanketed shall be, no longer just in one paper, but in several papers andseveral tv stations, with the influence that the precise candidates running down there,candidates like Harvey Gantt, are having no protection at all, are unable to get their messageout.It is a real getting rid of of the politicalprocess from politicians, who, some thing their faults, their fault just isn’t by and large that theyrenot poll pushed ample, however that theyre too ballot driven. James Fishkin: Most advocates of public journalismI know dont say that say that you just must cover the crusade, however you duvet it ina different means and from yet another angle and also you deliver in the issues that contact peopleslives as good because the horse race, which dominates the whole thing. I imply, we now have democracy thats not reallyfunctioning all that good.I communicate as a political scientist. When you appear at the turnout, should you appear atthe expertise that residents have concerning the campaign, I imply, forty percent dont knowthat Jack Kemp is Bob Doles jogging mate, and a quarter dont recognize the vice presidentis Clintons running mate. This was a Washington publish/Kaiser be taught recently. So weve acquired a public that is simply barelyattentive that reacts to a vague impact of sound bites and headlines.And if your concept of public journalism iseverybody shouting at each different, its difficult for people to think when everybodys shouting. Ben Wattenberg: how will you tellthem to feel with a public opinion ballot? James Fishkin: Ah. Good, I dont. Im no longer an Im a critic of conventionalpublic opinion polls. I have a new approach, which I call deliberativepolling.Do you wish to have me to assert a word about that? Ben Wattenberg: About one or a few. [Laughter.] James Fishkin: The idea of deliberative pollingis to head past traditional public opinion polling given that for those who just do conventionalpolling to advocate newspapers or whatever, you may also good simply reflect back the publicsvague affect of whats already being blanketed. But there is a further query. What would the men and women think if they actuallyhad an opportunity to overcome what social scientists have referred to as rational lack of awareness? I mean, theres a reason the publicsturned off. If Ive received one vote in thousands, why shouldI pay numerous attention to the complexities of public policy? When you consider that I wont have so much outcomes.But if we can create a social context wherepeople clearly can get engaged in the disorders, the place they think their voice matters, theypay attention. They do the rough work of taking note of competing Ben Wattenberg: and also you introduced together 500people as a nice sample and put them to tuition, truly, for a couple of days, studying theseissues. James Fishkin: good, we introduced put thewhole country in a single room beneath conditions where they could think by way of the issuesand ask their questions of competing professionals and competing politicians, including the vicepresident, over a number of days of discussion. And in instruction for that, they startedlistening to the media, studying up on the problems, speakme to pals and family, hearingcompeting facets of view.And we had dramatic alterations of opinion abouttheir view of the priorities. Steve Cuozzo: Forgive my announcing so, however theelitism inherent in that statement takes my breath away. Its underlying assumption appears to be thatthe public is incapable of making up its possess mind or listening or applying any criticalthinking to disorders in an atmosphere wherein there are lots of voices being heard. It strikes me that in lots of the marketswhere Im no longer a pleasant believer in polls or in center of attention businesses; Im a believer in themarket. And in lots of the areas in the us wherepublic journalism has taken maintain, I become aware of that, most commonly, they have an inclination overwhelminglyto be in cities which might be monopoly newspaper markets, small cities, medium-sized cities,with only a single newspaper, which is tends to be march in lock step with the advertisingcommunity. In bigger cities, together with Philadelphia andBoston, it perpetually tends to be the paper, within the case of The Inquirer or The Globe inBoston, the paper that’s totally dominant in that market. And it seems to me that in a metropolis with a diversityof media voices, as in ny, or in the nation as a entire, which has a diversityof media voices, its unthinkable that public journalism, as I appreciate you men and women, drawingin result, drawing yourself in with the voters to affect the political agenda, would reallytake location.Who determines what the issues are that matterto voters rather than the voters themselves? Do they must be guided and informed from onhigh? James Fishkin: The idea is first, the assumptionis no longer that men and women are incapable; as an alternative, theyre no longer with ease motivated. Actually, we now have discovered that they arevery capable of assessing problems if you happen to just give them a context the place they can speak toother folks and where they’ve some cause to pay attention and become engaged. Jane Eisner: I take first-rate challenge about thisbeing elitist. First of all, Im simply doing what Imdoing on my pages, and that is basically just right reporting. And its the sort of reporting that an editorialpage editor hasnt carried out in the past on The Philadelphia Inquirer. I spend a whole lot much less time at cocktailparties with the elite within the Philadelphia vicinity and more time simply being in gatheringsand being attentive to natural men and women. And its Ben Wattenberg: and also you run fewer syndicatedcolumns.Jane Eisner: No, thats no longer real. Ben Wattenberg: not genuine? Jodie Allen: The editorial pages are turningto reporting considering that the reporting pages are turning to editorializing. But I feel I a lot pick Steves modelwhere we let the entire vegetation bloom, however actually that were getting fewer and fewer[inaudible]. It appears to me then that we need to demandmore objectivity of a newspaper, less cheerleading, much less leading of crusades when its onlyone than when there are five. And so I consider the whole development runs in thewrong approach. Ben Wattenberg: There was once a ballot run recentlythat requested in regards to the ideological leanings of the Washington press corps and their editors. It was overwhelmingly, beyond anybodysprior notion, that they were a long way more liberal than the public as a whole. If the public journalism advocates are announcing,boy, we ought to get extra of us within the story and give an explanation for to folks whats wrong, isntthat automatically going to come back out much more as a trick of liberals to do more ofwhat theyve been criticized for? James Fishkin: No, its to get the peopleinto the story, no longer the pundits.No longer the pundits. And its to facilitate the humans comingto their possess conclusions and getting the peoples agenda aired within the newspaper so that peoplecan connect with the experiences. Ben Wattenberg: So youre going to have10 young journalists, 9 of whom are liberals, going out and discovering that the folks reallyhave a conservative agenda. Is that what were saying? James Fishkin: No, no. No, thats why Ive devised this elaborateprocess of random sampling of the persons and of the whole lot being obvious in terms ofeverything that is given to Ben Wattenberg: No, I appreciate that, butIm speaking about this common inspiration, which we nonetheless have not properly defined,incidentally, of Jane Eisner: but it surely cant be outlined. I mean, each newspaper is doing things intheir own means, and i feel thats one of the crucial problems with public journalism. And Ive written about this. I suppose the persons who are type of leadingthis action havent been discerning enough.I dont suppose that theyve stated that thereare some things newspapers ought to not do. And that i dont believe that its our function toshape the agenda besides on the editorial pages. I do suppose its our function to pay attention, especiallyto the men and women that we dont probably listen to. Steve Cuozzo: nevertheless it appears to me that if editorsand publishers need to spend money on the civic procedure of interaction between elected officialsand the voters alternatively, allow them to run for mayor, allow them to run for councilman,and allow them to, you know, take these steps that mean real funding in the method.James Fishkin: I feel newspapers and thepress almost always, the media, must be concerned with getting people discussing the issuesin an instructed way. You know, we had a enormous debate among presidentialcandidates. The actual future of democracy rests now not withthe debate amongst candidates, but with the controversy among the persons. Will we facilitate a debate among the many persons? Then folks that need to vote can come to a decision tovote, however as a minimum if they vote, theyll be instructed. However its a intricate system to figure outhow do we genuinely get them engaged adequate so that theyll even pay concentration. Ben Wattenberg: Jodie, what’s looking for tobe born right here? Jodie Allen: good, it appears to be that thebig case at the back of it’s a want to sell extra newspapers. Now, that is not a brand new concern on the partof newspaper publishers. Ben Wattenberg: to not come to be part of theprocess and purvey their precise ideological, style of goody-two-sneakers establishment sortof a thing, in my phrases? Jodie Allen: well, a few of that, too.But I suppose as you look, and when you lookespecially at a chain like Knight Ridder, which has been a chief within the public journalismidea, they are concerned, as are all publishers, about the fact that newspaper earnings have notbeen growing and in some cities have been declining. And theyre watching at all of the competitiontheyre getting from tv and from the web etc, and so they want to boostsales. And so they say, well, the right way to increase salesis to make the paper extra vital to peoples considerations. But that, you understand, its a common impulse,however its a detrimental one. One should depart from the idea of our job,find it irresistible or now not, is to present the information and the details as relatively as we are able to, realizing wedont continuously do it right.We are able to reward it in a more interesting approach,and that i think this has been a good move. However to then slavishly flip it into wellgo out and do a poll and let individuals tell us what we already knew and, keep in mind, everybodyknows that pollsters decide, A, what questions to ask, and B, learn how to ask them, and that theanswers they get no longer in Jims variety of poll, but thats not what have been talking about. Ben Wattenberg: And moreover, when politiciansfollow polls, we are saying, Oh, my God, theyre doing a terrible thing. Jodie Allen: Oh, isnt it horrible? So now heres the newspaper Ben Wattenberg: after which when newspapers followpolls, we are saying, Isnt that extraordinary? Jodie Allen: sure.Why would that be? Jane Eisner: I believe it I mean, Imnot going to shield that. We dont do that, and that i on no account would. But I do think you have got to watch out herebecause youre talking about a whole lot of newspapers doing a entire lot of differentthings, and that i believe its now not fair to brandish them all with one style of brush. I imply, I consider you, Jodie. We have under no circumstances carried out pollings here. I agree with you, Steve. We havent performed voter registration drives;yet another newspaper in Philadelphia did. I’d to find that to be a to compromiseour independence due to the fact that, correctly, the news side of The Philadelphia Inquirer did a terrificjob a number of years ago of uncovering a vote fraud scandal that was perpetuated through the very peoplewho had been seeking to get folks to signal up for votes.So I couldnt do this. Steve Cuozzo: Thats journalism. Jane Eisner: I mean, I simply believe like thatwould be really out of bounds. Steve Cuozzo: I believe that what youre doingon The Inquirer isnt public journalism, as youve defined it, Jim, notwithstandingthat there’s a targeted fuzziness in regards to the definition. Identification make one more point. Jodie, you mentioned, you already know, that publishersare promoting or tolerating public journalism of their pages with the hope of selling morepapers.And my wager is that theyre quite doingit to sell more advertising. I dont consider that anybody has any greathope of turning on a younger new release that doesnt have the newspaper addiction to goingout and buying newspapers in exceptional numbers. I believe nothing turns into a monopoly newspapermore in its market, or the dominant newspaper in its market when there’s one obviously dominant,than an aura of objectivity and civic accountability. And frankly, the form of public journalismthat promotes a variety of total, fuzzily outlined, good executive agenda lets get peopleout and vote, lets seem on the problems that quite matter to their lives is blandenough to promote that charisma of objectivity and promote extra division retailer commercials. Ben Wattenberg: you are pronouncing its a fakepopulism, whereas the tabloid voice is the true populism. Steve Cuozzo: Im not saying that the tabloidvoice in itself is the real populist voice. I say that the multiplicity of voices is thereal populist voice.Ben Wattenberg: correct. James Fishkin: might I introduce an historicalnote for a 2nd? Ben Wattenberg: sure. James Fishkin: the general public opinion poll wasitself launched with the aid of newspapers, and newspapers had been attacked for intervening within the politicalprocess after they did so. And correctly, most dramatically, even GeorgeGallups preliminary launch of the ballot within the 1936 election used to be financed, in gigantic section,with the aid of The Washington submit. So now, when newspapers habits polls, theyhave an result on the election. All these horse race polls have an effect bandwagon results, momentum results, obviously within the predominant season, and in the generalelection.Now, by some means thats now come to be a part of themodus operandi of newspapers, and its now not inspiration that theyre intervening. But they’re intervening. My exact proposal is: Why not intervenewith polls that measure in a more considerate method what the public would think? But these different efforts to seek advice the publicare just efforts. They’re much less dramatic interventionsin the political system than what newspapers are doing all the time. Jane Eisner: I truthfully feel weve setup a false dichotomy here, appearing as if theres objective journalism in some pure form thatused to be practiced until very just lately and this new variety of brand of public journalism,when in fact we continuously make judgments and picks in our journalism.We attempt to do it. You recognize, we are professionals, and so wetry to do it as quite as possible. But we are settling on. We are identifying to explain a political campaignas a battlefield, or we can decide upon to describe it as a discussion. And we use those phrases every day. Ben Wattenberg: is this tendency towards publicjournalism, whatever it method, impacting on this election this year? Jodie Allen: I dont believe its had avery gigantic outcomes on the presidential election. One cause is that individuals are simply now not veryconcerned about some thing. What the polls show is that even though crimepops up as the absolute best hindrance, thats seeing that it will get a ten percentage vote, which is why thisyear paying attention to polls is specifically misleading. But it is making a difference in some stateand regional elections, North Carolina being one very clear example. And i dont consider its making youknow, that its having a just right effect.I believe its having a worrisome result. Ben Wattenberg: The paper there is settingthe agenda and forcing the candidates to talk about that or they wont duvet them anymore. Jodie Allen: Theyre not even overlaying thecandidates. Theyre variety of masking themselves, andits just variety of statewide thumb-sucking. I quite with the television going alongside withit. I believe its a bad thing. Its no longer democracy as I are aware of it. And that i consider there is to select up on somethingJane said, I feel shes right that newspapers are getting if you appear at the long run,theyve surely gotten better instructed and, actually, more goal. But that has been their goal. When you now swap the intention and say, no,put out of your mind the objectivity, the factor is to get in tune with what the persons need, youllsee the pattern step by step move within the other direction. And i dont believe its healthy. Ben Wattenberg: Is it simply what the peoplewant or what the journalists want? Jodie Allen: well, see, theres the dangerousthing.We make a decision, you realize, what query to askthe people. I feel, you recognize, if you get that mind-set,the chance is invariably there anyway, and when you feed it, it will get worse. Ben Wattenberg: correct, and if youre a suspiciousnon-liberal, like your moderator, I mean, and you seem at these polls, pronouncing, well,most of these journalists are swinging from the liberal aspect of the plate, is thatnot grounds for being suspicious of this? Jodie Allen: Oh, yeah. Ben Wattenberg: good. Thanks all. Thanks, Jane Eisner, Jodie Allen, JamesFishkin, and Steve Cuozzo. And thanks. We revel in listening to from our viewers. That you would be able to ship your questions and comments toNew River Media, 1150 seventeenth avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20036. For consider Tank, Im Ben Wattenberg. Announcer: This has been a creation of BJWInc., in organization with New River Media, which are exclusively liable for its content..

Should Journalism Be Objective? Serial: Part 2 | Idea Channel | PBS Digital Studios

Posted in Home Furnishings, Local journalism, Uncategorized on September 24th, 2019
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

here’s an idea cereal shows us how journalism might not be objective but maybe that’s okay last time on idea channel we talked about objectivity the law and the people who practice it this I think is what cereal and even sometimes The Good Wife show us that though the law might have some objective moral basis it is still very much open to interpretation so objective sure but maybe only to a point objective but complexly so and maybe that’s something cereal shows us at the end of this video we’ll see what you had to say about last week’s video a video which you don’t need to watch in order to understand this one but it probably wouldn’t hurt especially if you don’t know much about the podcast cereal because today we’re gonna ask about the other side of cereals set up not the detectives council experts or suspect but its host journalist of Sarah Koenig and her team were they or was Sarah too involved in odd noms case does the cereal have some uh upheld responsibility to be disinterested did they transgress some set of journalistic ethics this has been a big criticism of caning from the start to at the beginning of the show is vocally Pro odd none at this point I’m gonna say flat-out that I don’t buy the motive for this murder at least not how the state explained it I just don’t see it as the show progresses her skepticism regarding the potentially lifelong inmates innocence herbs and flows but overall cereal never fully departs from a narrative that seems to be searching for ye bit of evidence to exonerate odd non of his conviction of his girlfriend Haman Lee’s murder in 1999 Kanaka said that this wasn’t her intention that she was aware she might potentially uncover something useful but that the goal of serial was never explicitly to free aDNA criticisms have continued regardless even after the finale the way Sarah treated Jay the fact that she didn’t speak with Kevin Urich the prosecutor in odd nons case a thing which she and the cereal team have responded to publicly and other various and sundry actions or inactions that raised the question of whether caning and her producers were really letting all the facts speak for themselves in other words being objective I’m not sure they were I’m also not sure that that’s problem but before we talk about why let’s talk for a second about journalistic objectivity in many Western countries but particularly in the United States objectivity is the cornerstone principle of journalism in a paper for journalism studies Quan Ramon Munoz Torres paraphrases David mindish who even suggests that without the concept of objectivity American journalism cannot be understood at all so let’s make sure we understand objectivity we covered the high-level concepts last week when we were talking about the law objectivity is a framework for existence and knowledge free from the knowers own biases and both of these are still very much at play in journalism as well but the concept of journalistic objectivity tends to add one more dimension that of balance often our understanding of journalistic objectivity assumes an almost ethical directive it’s viewed as unfair or deceptive if reporting doesn’t give equal time to all sides of a story or debate this expectation is so pervasive that even idea Channel is often chided for not showing both sides of the story luckily we’re not the news or aiming to be objective even a little I can say one side of an argument like it’s the truth and to move on with a totally clear conscience relatedly as immune Yas Torres points out this is all ostensibly in a service of the truth the goal of journalism is to provide insight and accountability where citizens laws and politics cannot or do not and so it goes that the pursuit of that insight or accountability should be neutral impartial fair balanced but what if the other side of a story is considered marginal at best or dangerous at worst the BBC for instance recently decided to stop giving equal airtime to those denying the effects of climate change it’s also arguable that objectivity is something of a goose that journalists are encouraged to chase as Glenn Greenwald puts it in no place to hide every news article is the product of all sorts of highly subjective cultural nationalistic and political assumptions here on ID channel I’ve said something similar in different terms that media always reflects the conditions of its production or to look at this another way our sense of journalistic objectivity is one built by applying some romantic even vaguely scientific concept of rational empiricism to reporting the news unfortunately in journalism and even in a science a perfectly objective basis is untenable there’s no foundation for gathering the facts which does not rely in some way on the subjective judgments of human beings none at all sorry but okay now we are briskly headed down a path towards the unconcluded semantic argument beginning with the question but what is truth anyway man glenn greenwald’s again can provide a pertinent detour the relevant distinction he writes is not between journalists who have opinions and those who have none a category which does not exist it’s between journalists who candidly reveal their opinions and those who conceal them pretending they have none Media critic and NYU journalism professor Jay Rosen has rendered this same sentiment much more succinctly transparency he said is the new objectivity for the longest time objectivity reigned supreme over journalistic practice but it’s throne is crumbling studies in the US and Europe have shown that practitioners see objectivity as an ideal to strive for but that there is just as much of a sense that it is an impossible ideal this I think is an industry-wide almost neurosis that cereal wears on its sleeve there are many things that you can say cereal did less than perfectly but I think to its credit I never felt like Sarah Koenig or her producers were any more or less sure or unsure about the story than they clearly expressed to hear a canings description of the process of digging through courts documents and evidence tracking people down talking to experts developing leads and testing them against the materials at her disposal alongside her various convictions beliefs skepticism and intentions I catch glimpses of a journalistic process which I think lets the facts and the reporter speak at the same time of course transparency is not a binary value but a scalar one cereals transparent knob might not have been cranked all the way to 11 but their efforts felt significant and honest but I don’t know maybe I’m just being naive maybe journalism does have some impossible objective ideal but its base aims fairness accountability investigation communication are no less inherently subjective meaning objective journalism like plastic glasses a small crowd or things that are pretty ugly can exist but only in the spite of what it first appears to be what do you guys think can and should journalism be objective were Sara and her team objective let us know in the comments and it would be objectively nice of you if you were to subscribe it is objectively very snowy in New York City right now let’s eat you guys had to say about objectivity cereal and the law as tends to be the case on idea Channel when there is a some cataclysmic weather event like there is in New York City right now you get to see the inside of my apartment a little bit more so that’s why you are not looking at the record wall or the idea channel set because I am stuck at home anyways it’s not gonna stop us from responding to comments but before we do office hours is the thing that we figured out February 7th at the IBM Pavilion in Midtown in Manhattan I’m gonna hang out for a couple hours there’s no set plan just come hang out chat with me talk with other idea channel viewers just have fun we’ll hang out come for 10 minutes come for a couple hours okay on to comments Erik viewless makes the really great point that whether or not the law is based on objective moral truths what we’re talking about here is what objectively happened and it shouldn’t factor in that people are biased in some way when they’re trying to figure out just what happened and that there is some objective truth to that and that might be true but I think you know you see especially in a serial that there’s no way to get to that objective truth without passing through the conduit of very subjective biased confused forgetful people and yeah I mean that’s right that is the whole tension here and the conversation that follows this comment is so good I highly recommend checking it out links to this comment and all the in the Yakuza who talks about michel foucault and the idea of objectivity as it is sort of imposed or or developed by institutions and and also sort of offers advice of the question of you know it might be more worthwhile to ask whether or not the idea of objectivity is important or worthwhile or good and this made me think of a passage that I have underlined in the Michele Foucault reader that because I’m home I could just pull off of my bookshelf and read it says the power of the norm as in normality appears through the disciplines right so these are the disciplines of these institutions is this the new law of modern society let us say rather that since the 18th century it has joined other powers the law the word and the text tradition imposing new delimitations on them and then a little bit further down says like surveillance and with it normalization becomes one of the great instruments of power at the end of the Classical Age and this is basically all about how the normalization of culture and behavior through the existence of institutions is effectively law which i think is a very important and great content ranking for this country ernest petty talks about how one of the things that you could say is attractive about the law is its sense of objectivity that there is this sense that it is not different for different people and that that could provide a sort of sense of justice or a a basis for justice but that there are certain situations where it becomes clear that maybe the law is different for different people and that and that those events and situations are incredibly important because they might inspire us in us an interest or a a sense that we can and should try to change the way things are and that maybe cereal factors into that in some way and I would say yes and yeah I agree Laurel teal brings up the idea of the social contract which I definitely should have mentioned by name it’s the idea that there is sort of a contract between all people in a society to behave in a certain way and talks about how that is maybe both expressive of and kind of upholding of the ideas that contribute to the existence of law but that also another thing worth considering is that our ideas about how these things should be objective probably say just as much about our culture and society as what happens when we attempt that objectivity as as the results that we get from it and finally and relatedly Sarah Wayne talks about how it is maybe the reaching for objectivity that is the most important thing that as of the idea of what it means to be human what it means to be a human around other humans changes and progresses and we uncover more understanding about it our idea of what is right what is objectively right will necessarily change and that this idea of objectivity in law is sort of like utopia that you know it it’s a nice idea to reach for you’re probably you’re never gonna get there but maybe it doesn’t hurt to try fair this week’s episode was brought to you by the hard work of objectively the best editing team in New York City we have a facebook an IRC and a subreddit links in the doobly Doo and the tweet of the week comes from TJ von P who let me know that cereal is not an NPR show which I should have known as someone who works in public media this is very embarrassing for me I will I will do penance ten Hail Therese and one hour later you [Music]

Hey Cowichan, support community-driven journalism

Posted in Home Furnishings, Local journalism, Uncategorized on September 18th, 2019
Tags: , , , , , ,

I need studies that share solutions. I need reports that have empathy. I want stories that i know the people which are concerned and i know that it’ll have an effect on me. We hear you, we wish that too. And that expenses cash. Yep, this is a type of videos the place we ask you for cash, and we believe a bit of awkward doing it. However we think its worth it. The Discourse has been growing thoughtful, neighborhood-pushed journalism in the Cowichan Valley. And now could be our moment of truth. We ought to reach a thousand monthly supporters by means of June 15. And thats why were asking you, sure you, and might be 999 of your closest neighbors to pay for The Discourse.Since we want to proceed producing quality nearby journalism and that handiest works when people who can come up with the money for to, pay for it. Heres what your cash will go to. At the back of each story is a staff of journalists working their tails off to make it occur. We find knowledge, constantly add context and comprise views most media ignore. At the Discourse, have been scrappy, were passionate about altering whose voices are in media and had been encouraged daily via what we hear from you. The Cowichan Valley desires The Discourse in view that we want a media supply thats grassroots from the humans and its a form of journalism for the men and women. I see how dedicated The Discourse is to being wholly embedded in the community and getting the entire story. When it comes correct down to it, The Discourse is willing to tell the reality. Exhibit us that you consider in what we do. Emerge as a paying supporter of The Discourse. Be a part of it..

Bernie’s AMAZING Plan To Save Journalism

Posted in Home Furnishings, Local journalism, Uncategorized on August 31st, 2019
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

>> it’s no surprise that natural mediaoutlets, and i am speakme about media retailers, that do real journalism are facing a verydifficult media landscape. Correctly, neighborhood news has been eaten up by means of thisgiant media conglomerates, and that makes it possible for for company control. Company control of some corporations total of our media. And it’s anything that Bernie Sanders wroteabout within the Columbia Journalism review. So in his piece, he not only sheds gentle onthis large concern in journalism. However he additionally talks about what his solutionswould be as president. So here is what he says. We’re going to institute an on the spot moratoriumon approving mergers of essential media organisations except we are able to higher fully grasp the genuine effectthese transactions have on our democracy. He additionally writes, we will be able to reverse the Trumpadministration’s attempts to make company media mergers even more seemingly sooner or later.We are not going to rubber stamp proposalslike the new plan to merge CBS and Viacom right into a $30 billion colossus. So there’s extra. There’s a lot that he wants to do, and thereare also details that he talks about the concerns he has about media that I wanna get into injust a second. However has any individual, as a presidential candidate,mentioned media conglomerates? I don’t suppose i can believe of a single personother than this instance from the day prior to this. Bernie Sanders announcing that, good day, that is ahuge drawback, this goes in opposition to our democratic system.We need an advised public, so we’d like toactually focus on this trouble. >> Yeah, the only other character, unsurprisingly,in at the least half of of the context, is Elizabeth Warren. She pointed out breaking up the giant digitalcompanies like facebook, Google, etc., which have large digital media accessories. And Elizabeth Warren’s been a lot rough onbusiness pursuits total. However sure, Ana, when you are speakme about themedia conglomerates from natural media, Bernie Sanders is speakme about it. And he is doing it with nuance, and i wannadive into that a bit bit. Due to the fact he says, look, 20,000 jobs have beenlost in typical media over the final decade. Essentially, 3,200 jobs had been lost the mediaindustry just in the final year alone, which could be very massive.1,four hundred communities have misplaced nearby newspapers,no one else is speakme about these traits, k? They usually’re obviously at the presidentiallevel, and this enables individuals to consolidate vigour. After which, when few multi-billion dollar corporationsor average saw the media, they control the message, they manage the framing, and theycontrol a lot more. He additionally criticizes the media for supportingthe popularity quo seeing that of that and supporting company interests.Now, that’s in general verboten, no longer allowed. The leisure of the media then come down on themlike a ton of bricks, and they did. They look at this concept, and close to allthe write-usaare sneering. Although he is seeking to aid the media,they are like, no, you dare to criticize us from the left, which is utterly unacceptable. From the right, you might bash us all daylong, make up conspiracy theories, threaten our lives, and we are going to cower to you. However from the left, in case you have a legitimatethoughtful critique, our emotions are hurt, and we will fake that you are in opposition to us. When for those who read his real inspiration, he is actuallytrying to avoid wasting the media. >> Yeah, exactly. But I imply, seem, I consider it particularly does dependwho the commentary is coming from. So if the commentary is coming from independentjournalists or from contributors who worked in these regional publications who misplaced theirjobs, my wager is these varieties of proposals enchantment to them. However if you are given a multi-million dollarcontract to be a bunch on cable information, and your manufacturer falls beneath this massive media conglomerate,yeah.I mean, you either love this, and which you could’treally say whatever about it, or you hate it seeing that it places your economic future injeopardy, or your very profitable financial future in jeopardy. So let me give you some more of what BernieSanders needs to do. What Trump has performed enables cross-ownershipof newspapers and tv or radio stations. He’s additionally given the green gentle to owningmultiple stations within the identical market. So within the commencing of Trump’s administration,there was once that significant story about Sinclair broadcasting team and the way they’re snatching up nearby stationsall over the nation.And they’re quite monopolizing the news andthe messaging that will get out there, so that’s one example of what Bernie Sanders is talkingabout right here. We will be able to begin requiring important media corporationsto expose whether or now not their corporate transactions and merger proposals will involvesignificant journalism layoffs. >> they are going to. >> Yeah, and they do. Frequently they do, and we’ve got visible that overand over once more. Staff need to receive an choice, I lovethis part. Staff need to be given an possibility topurchase media outlets by way of worker inventory ownership plans and revolutionary trade modelthat used to be first pioneered in the newspaper industry.So oftentimes, the hardworking humans behindthe success of these publications or these television stations, they don’t get paid enough. They don’t have advantages that may actuallyappeal to any common individual who wishes healthcare or a retirement plan. And so he’s pronouncing right here, seem, we’d like tohave the staff get a seat on the desk, have some ownership of the corporation throughthis stock options, and i love that. He’s all about looking out for employees. He additionally fascinated about the necessity of diversitywithin this newsrooms, which i really like. So he also says, additionally, we will passmy workplace Democracy Plan, if you want to raise media employees’ laudable efforts to type unionsand mutually bargain with their employers. >> Yeah, not one of the bosses are gonna likethis. And so the more I read it, the more I thought,man, he is bought a good shot of winning.And so, you understand why? Virtually, you do comprehend why. But the guys on television, and incidentally,it can be now not just television. I suppose so, probably the most egregious violators ofbias within the media is the new York times, NPR, on and on it goes, k? And their base assumption is that this approach isawesome. Any mission to this process and the bosseswho run it’s unacceptable. And so, but the extra they preserve pronouncing that,like a Bernie Sanders would truly trade the method, and he would provide the employees’rights, it can be outrageous. What individuals heard is, Bernie Sanders wouldchange the system, I really like that. Staff would have more lift. Wait, i’m a employee, yeah, tell me extra.>> Yeah, there are extra employees there. >> they’re by accident doing advertisingfor him. And they can not see straight, cuz they may be like,well, all the humans in cost do not like Bernie Sanders, so i am simply gonna hold repeatingthat. Thank you. >> David Sirota, who is on Bernie Sanders’scampaign group, had tweeted anything about how he is been rising in the polls despitethe very negative and hateful coverage towards him within the mainstream media. However i do not think it’s regardless of. I consider that their assaults on Bernie Sanders,as you simply mentioned correct now, helps him. >> Yeah. >> considering that it attracts concentration to these proposalsthat folks, typical american citizens. I am now not speakme about executives’ love, correct? >> Yeah, but appear, guys.How mostly have you heard me say on TheYoung Turks? I imply, if you’re counting a few billion,if you are taking part in drinking video games, you’re obliterated at this factor. American voters don’t like large business,they do not like gigantic media, and so they do not like general politicians. That is headquartered on the polling. All of them poll miserably, 30%, 20%, 10%. Congress once failed a 9%, maybe even 7% inone poll. And each person on tv tells you, americans lovebig business.Howdy, that is who creates the jobs, okay? And americans love giant media like me, proper? Getting paid 10, $20 million a yr. They love that, they love it. And when I support every person who’s robust,they love that. And polished politicians who are constantlychanging their strategy without a principles in any respect, american citizens love that. None of that’s true, none of it’s remotelytrue. So what i’ve been saying and advising publicly,modern candidates, is run towards that. In case you bash these associations, American peoplewill love you for it. Even though the media will yell at you, yougot to brace for impact. And also you obtained to be competent to say damn the torpedoes,damn my colleagues. Cuz they are gonna get their emotions hurtfirst, and they’re gonna go rush out and be like, hiya Bernie, come on. I take cash from Comcast, are you sayingI’m corrupt? I am your colleague, Bernie. Well, sad day for you, then don’t take moneyfrom Comcast. And i’m moving on with my existence. You received to have the nerve to assert that, yougot to have the courage to claim that. And then the media will all yell at you inunison, and that is a difficult factor to deal with in case you’ve in no way dealt with that.Fortunately, i have. So i understand how that feels. But you if you are gonna run for president,you’re gonna win. You obtained to do this. And now that Bernie has commenced to do this healways had the right insurance policies. But he wasn’t honest announcing that, and youheard me say this commonly, back in 2016 and within the commencing of this crusade. He wasn’t being hard ample on the mediaand his damned colleagues. And so, now that he takes a way more aggressivestance, whats up, appear at that rise in the polls. >> like it..