From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: CNN Anchor Admits Pro-Clinton Bias
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 20:36:17 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Sep8.172004.20621@ncar.ucar.edu> gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
>pn> Peter Nelson
>
>pn> I don't understand why some people seem to have a problem with journalists,
>pn> editors, and newspapers and TV stations having opinions which are expressed
>pn> in their reporting.  The idea of "objective journalism" is naive nonsense
>pn> anyway and we should all grow up and stop demanding or expecting it.
>
>  What's your opinion, then, on the constant bleating by journalists that they
>  *are* being objective? Perhaps they've fallen into the trap of believing 
>  their own propaganda, a common fault of libertarians, as you often say. 

  I'm sure that's part of it.  I'm sure that another part is that these are
  pro-forma statements that nobody, or at least nobody with any reasonable
  knowledge of the world, is expected to believe, i.e., PR statements like 
  those issued by politicians, religions, and corporations all the time.

  
>  I don't think it's out of line to demand objectivity, since we as consumers
>  of the media have the power to force it to accomodate our wishes.

  I disagree that objectivity is *possible*.  Reporters, editors, photo-
  graphers, etc are human beings with inevitable biases, prejudices, 
  and a whole bunch of built-in cultural assumptions.   I agree we as
  consumers have a great deal of power to control media content.  One
  argument (which I've been making here lately) is that we actually DO
  exercise this power routinely and the result is what we're getting.
  But if we don't/aren't then I would claim the best we could hope for is
  to create journalistic organs which are not objective, but which merely
  reflect OUR particular prejudices.   And we already do this as well, which
  is why I make sure to read National Review *and* the Utne Reader, among
  other publications when considering an issue.
 

  
>  Also, as powerful as the media is, with regards to the political system in
>  this country, I believe that they *do* have some degree of obligation towards
>  objectivity. In a way, your attitude is like asking a jury to ignore the facts
>  of the case (ie, forget being objective) and concentrate on irrelevant factors
>  when making their decision.

  But juries have certain advantages: they only have to make a yes/no decision
  and they have a standard (the law) to base that decision on.   Now before you
  say that journalists also have a standard, "the truth", consider that most
  journalistic bias, at least in the US, is not based on telling untruths, 
  but on matters of emphasis.   It is "the truth" that many economists say
  that NAFTA will generate 400,000 new jobs; it is also "the truth" that many
  economists say that 150,000 existing jobs may be lost.   Most issues are 
  very complex; estimates (jobs, number of dead in a war, ecological damage, 
  etc) vary all over the place; "experts" genuinely disagree on major issues
  and journalists can't be expected to boil all this down to yes/no.  There 
  are always more facts, more detail, and more nuances than can be reported
  in a TV show or newspaper.  So on what basis should journalists pick and 
  choose?  

  Also, keep in mind that juries have a specific job to do: determine innocence
  or guilt.   Newspapers and TV also have a job to do: sell viewers/readers
  (hopefully qualified) to advertisers.   I mean let's not be naive here; CNN
  is a *business* and we are not their customers; *advertisers* are.  We are 
  *the product*.   Again nothing wrong with that, per se.  But scandal, dire
  threats, and other stuff with emotional content SELLS.  And again there's nothing
  wrong with that unless we get our romantic illusions about journalistic
  mission, objectivity, and honor shattered.  



> We *can* demand *and* expect more from the media.  We're doing ourselves a
> disservice if we don't.

  It's a free market.  I don't watch TV at all because I think it's dopey as
  hell.   But I do read all kinds of obscure journals.   Anyone else can 
  make the same choices I did.


---peter




Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton