EveryMorningVille
“So much for Objective Journalism. Don't bother to look for it here--not under any byline of mine; or anyone else I can think of. With the possible exception of things like box scores, race results, and stock market tabulations, there is no such thing as Objective Journalism. The phrase itself is a pompous contradiction in terms.”
Hunter S. Thompson
In: Fear And Loathing On The Campaign Trail, 1972.
****
1972 was a long time ago, indeed.
And yet, still, big time American 'journalism', for want of a better word, still clings to the faux concept of objectivity which, in the face of a true danger to the Republic like Donald Trump and his enablers, greatly contributed to the spectacle of last night's first debate, wherein Joe Biden couldn't afford to just sit back and let Fred's son spew his garbage, unabated, for 90 minutes.
Why?
Because if Mr. Biden had done so he would have been found to be pretty much equally at fault, regardless.
Perhaps we should let James Fallows, writing in the Atlantic a few weeks ago, explain:
...Everyone in journalism has sat through countless discussions of the limits of objectivity. But the power of the impulse still shows up now, in 2020, in several distinctive ways.
One is a habitual, even reflexive presentation of claims or statements that a reporter knows are not of equivalent truthfulness, as if they were....
One is a habitual, even reflexive presentation of claims or statements that a reporter knows are not of equivalent truthfulness, as if they were. (Thus, “false equivalence.”) A stark recent example was an AP story on September 4, with the headline “Dueling Versions of Reality Define 1st Week of Fall Campaign.” It began:
The “some much more than others” phrase is a way to signal what the reporter certainly knows: that Joe Biden’s claims are within the realm of normal political spin and emphasis, while Trump’s are not true. ...
Gosh.
If only the USian proMedia would stop with their objectified nods and winks and actually tell the public precisely what they actually know to be demonstrably false, religiously without fear of being accused of bias.
It seems that would go a long way to helping America get out of the mess it has gotten itself into.
.
And yet, still, big time American 'journalism', for want of a better word, still clings to the faux concept of objectivity which, in the face of a true danger to the Republic like Donald Trump and his enablers, greatly contributed to the spectacle of last night's first debate, wherein Joe Biden couldn't afford to just sit back and let Fred's son spew his garbage, unabated, for 90 minutes.
Why?
Because if Mr. Biden had done so he would have been found to be pretty much equally at fault, regardless.
Perhaps we should let James Fallows, writing in the Atlantic a few weeks ago, explain:
...Everyone in journalism has sat through countless discussions of the limits of objectivity. But the power of the impulse still shows up now, in 2020, in several distinctive ways.
One is a habitual, even reflexive presentation of claims or statements that a reporter knows are not of equivalent truthfulness, as if they were....
One is a habitual, even reflexive presentation of claims or statements that a reporter knows are not of equivalent truthfulness, as if they were. (Thus, “false equivalence.”) A stark recent example was an AP story on September 4, with the headline “Dueling Versions of Reality Define 1st Week of Fall Campaign.” It began:
NEW YORK (AP) — On the campaign trail with President Donald Trump, the pandemic is largely over, the economy is roaring back, and murderous mobs are infiltrating America’s suburbs.
With Democrat Joe Biden, the pandemic is raging, the economy isn’t lifting the working class, and systemic racism threatens Black lives across America.
The first week of the fall sprint to Election Day crystallized dizzyingly different versions of reality as the Republican incumbent and his Democratic challenger trekked from Washington and Delaware to Wisconsin and Pennsylvania and back, each man on an urgent mission to sell his particular message to anxious voters.
All the conflicting messages carry at least a sliver of truth, some much more than others .
The “some much more than others” phrase is a way to signal what the reporter certainly knows: that Joe Biden’s claims are within the realm of normal political spin and emphasis, while Trump’s are not true. ...
Gosh.
If only the USian proMedia would stop with their objectified nods and winks and actually tell the public precisely what they actually know to be demonstrably false, religiously without fear of being accused of bias.
It seems that would go a long way to helping America get out of the mess it has gotten itself into.
Even without the muddying of all waters, demonstrably fuzzy-false or otherwise, by the fine folks from the enabler-adjacent Lincoln Project.
If you get my drift.
OK?
OK?
_______
Meanwhile, in Portland....
.
No comments:
Post a Comment