(Replying to PARENT post)
"Objective" or "impartial" were never descriptive - they were aspirational. It's a philosophy that says "check your assumptions" and "let the reader draw conclusions." It's this aspiration that appears to be leaving the industry.
I recently saw an article in the NY Times.
Headline: "Churches Were Eager to Reopen. Now They Are A Major Source of Cases." Body (summarized): 650 cases linked to churches and religious events since the start of the pandemic.
I believe this was published on the same day that the US crossed 3,000,000 cases, meaning that this "major source of cases" was linked to 0.022% of all cases.
So, why I brought this up. Is there a fully objective way to share this news? Of course not - the very act of publishing an article about church transmission is political - looking for that data was a result of bias. But there clearly was a more objective way to publish it, by changing the title from one that's so obviously bullshit to one that just shares the facts.
Edit: it appears that NYT changed the headline 2 days after publishing. DDG search, top result is the old headline, click through and it has a new one: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=churches+were+eager+to+reopen+site...
(Replying to PARENT post)
The media can be more, or less objective. It can be more, or less impartial. Each source can have bias, more, or less. The problem becomes when sources centralize around political ideas and competition decreases. What was once nationwide respected newspapers and 1 hour evening news, became 3 major 24/7 news-channels, decimated newspaper industry controlled by conglomerates, and social media being gamed by everyone squeezing dollars out of an uneducated populace.
I genuinely challenge people on here to read old newspapers and look at the difference in reporting. There were far more newspapers - every major city had one. The nightly news didn't have time to have a "panel" of "experts" discuss how "issue x will destroy america."
And instead of addressing the real issue - the money behind politics (i.e. citizens united, coinciding with social media), you say it's "inherent to media." No it is not. media needs to be free and it needs to be decentralized. And no, it does not need to be perfect.
(Replying to PARENT post)
There's a difference between having a bias in your reporting and being an activist. Of course every viewpoint is biased. At the very least, there was always a heavy American bias in the mainstream media.
But today they're rabidly and without much self reflection trying to destroy any opposition to creating a society at large that strictly conforms to their vision for the world. And they're doing so without much integrity or a commitment to accept those with alternative ideas as having any legitimacy.
(Replying to PARENT post)
The best we can hope for IMO is journalism that is up front about it's biases and political slant and clearly distinguishes factual and opinion reporting.
(Replying to PARENT post)
With respect to the mainstream media, there was always some bias in terms of what was reported. What we are seeing today is something entirely different and very dangerous.
The original article pointed to a couple of the problems with the media today, things like there being disagreement over what the facts are and how balanced reporting has a tendency to misrepresent the facts. I would go a step further by suggesting that facts and context have been abandoned altogether.
The end result is that two media outlets can tell two very different stories about the same issue. Ignoring facts is how we end up with protests being described as riots, or being described as protests with undue emphasis upon violence (which is a clear case of balance misrepresenting the facts). At the opposite end of the spectrum, I have seen individual claims left unquestioned in the name of moral clarity. The sad part is that reporters could take a step back, look at what is happening at a societal level, and have damning evidence that backs their moral clarity with facts.
If you believe that this is nothing new, I would suggest pulling up a full newspaper from thirty years ago. You would find that news reporting is clearly separated from other content. You would also find that moral clarity is in there, but it would be clearly presented in forms such as the editorial or human interest story. Lines were drawn instead of blurred.
(Replying to PARENT post)
100%? No. But it was much more objective and impartial. Journalism ethics were more important than pandering to specific target audiences. Now it's become a popularity contest and truth is very unpopular.
(Replying to PARENT post)
If we just say that there is no impartiality, we put the news outlets that do a lot of research and strive to give news reports painting a balanced view of reality at the same level as propaganda machines that completely disregard facts.
(Replying to PARENT post)
However there are degrees, and this does NOT mean that neutrality is not worth fighting for. The points about authoritarian states serve to highlight how much worse it could be without a constant pressure toward objectivity (or as close as we can get).
(Replying to PARENT post)
The claim to impartiality and unbiased-ness was indeed a way for certain papers to enhance their credibility and it's been concentrated more in the US than other countries, where each political party having a newspaper is a situation that doesn't raise eyebrows (still, papers in other countries do sometimes try for the mantle of objectivity, independence and so).
That said, there are degrees of spin and non-spin. The papers that make up stories are below those that exaggerate facts who are below those that get the facts correct but use "framing" to put forward their positions.
I think mass support for false facts is new for the industrializing world. It's kind of a throwback to times of pernicious superstition. And the result one can imagine are thus disturbing.
(Replying to PARENT post)
Some, but probably not most; most developed democracies _severely_ limit spending on political campaigning. The US is something of an oddity there.
(Replying to PARENT post)
It could be, but it would turn most news organizations into simple notification services that resemble weather reports. Some folks desire the opinions and biased views.
(Replying to PARENT post)
(Replying to PARENT post)
It depends where you are - I'm in the UK where TV news still has objectivity regulation. I know that's been gone in the US for a long time.
In general though I think when there were fewer publications and delivery channels that we had to share together (the newspaper stand), journalists had to appeal to a wider audience than they do now.
Personal devices mean they have a direct route to you, on an article-by-article basis. So they can write whatever lands in a niche.
(Replying to PARENT post)
I find it appalling how people believe there is such a thing as unopinionated journalism. There's not, especially in a world where much media outlet income and even access to information comes from its association with state actors.
In some - if not most - parts of the world, there are even supposedly impartial media outlets whose most income comes from advertisings for state campaigns and politicians' agendas.
Exclusive perks and access to state authorities for journalists is also another problem. While many people might say that it's essential for them to have close access to presidents, governors, and lawmakers to inform the general public, no one can argue that this doesn't have implications in behavior.
You get reporters traveling alongside politicians in taxpayer-paid aircraft, bypassing immigration protocols, getting celebrities associated with authority, and their integrity is likely going to mold even if it is hard to see.