Talk:Journalistic objectivity

message: I hesitate to edit the article, but I'd like the author to please explain/defend the use of the term "disinterestedness," which is a term used often in the study of art appreciation. Immanuel Kant explained the term as: "Where the question is whether something is beautiful, we do not want to know, whether we, or anyone else, are, or even could be, concerned in the real existence of the thing." This seems to me the exact opposite of journalistic objectivity (indeed, of journalism).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guytal2 (talk • contribs) 12:19, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: great changes + wishlist

message: "News stories of the period often described with detachment the hanging, immolation and mutilation of men, women and children by mobs. Under the regimen of objectivity, news writers often attempted to balance these accounts by recounting the alleged transgressions of the victims that provoked the lynch mobs to fury."
Can somebody provide some primary sources for this information?  The author of this statement really should have cited an example.  
Br0ken 07:10, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference Please

message: The "definitions" section near the start is well done, I think, but it really needs citations to major proponents of the different views it reports.  It needs references.  In particular, I am curious to see a reference to something advocating the idea that journalists should be NPOV.  I've encountered that mostly as a trend resulting from a desire to avoid controversy, not as a journalistic philosophy that people stand behind.  My impression is likely wrong, but this is exactly why we need references here.  I am adding the template to say citations are needed. Rlitwin 14:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition section - cites

message: Adding something about conflicts interest, exaggerating to sensationalize, and motivations of profit or career advancement should also be mentioned. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Conflicts of interest

message: I'm removing some content that is unsourced and/or reads more like a personal opinion than encyclopedic content. The following paragraph seems a bit more significant than the other stuff I've done, so I'm noting it here. This appears to be a fringe decision made by an individual, and I don't think it sheds much light on the issue of objectivity in itself; it's more along the lines of trivia. So I don't think it belongs here (though it might belong in Washington Post or similar). -Pete (talk) 00:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing some content 

message: This section is entirely mistaken. Objectivity did not emerge in the 1830s, nor do any scholars (except maybe Schiller) make this claim. Schudson sees objectivity in the 1920s. Kaplan in 1900-1910. Baldasty in late 19th century. Objectivity, as the references to Schudson suggest, implies an active distrust of the reporter's capacity to make judgments. So news adotps a discourse of unemotional facticity, quoting others and avoiding most adjectives and adverbs. That did not occur unitl late 19c and did not become the dominant professional ethic until the early 20c.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.254.85.211 (talk) 02:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: ...and this has been done with the support of an AFD (partly because Media Balance already redirects to Objectivity (journalism) as well), however, as that page has already content different from Objectivity (journalism), making a history merge undesirable, the page has since been archived on Talk: Objectivity (journalism)/Media_balance. Content from that section should migrate to Objectivity (journalism) if it is properly cited.--SilentScope001 (talk) 13:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Media balance" now redirects to Objectivity (journalism) 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Journalistic objectivity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120201173946/http://www.journalism.columbia.edu/profile/160-brent-cunningham/164 to http://www.journalism.columbia.edu/profile/160-brent-cunningham/164
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Journalistic objectivity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160405061527/http://www.journalism.columbia.edu/profile/62-michael-schudson/10 to http://www.journalism.columbia.edu/profile/62-michael-schudson/10
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Yet another article that is self-indulgently and self-obsessively North American-centric or anglosphere-centric. I have added tags to the "History" and "Criticisms" sections, asking for more examples of definitions or debates on the subject from outside the United States and the United Kingdom. Is journalistic objectivity not discussed at all in any other countries of the planet ?
Issues with maintaining journalistic objectivity, integrity and transparency are a worldwide subject and exist in vistually every country (even those that are sadly without a free press - those lack a space for even attempting journalistic objectivity). I would suggest more examples be added in the "History", "Criticisms", etc. section, from other parts of the world as well. Also, while the "Criticisms" section is , I would advise against greatly expanding. It defeats the purpose of the article if the Criticisms section is nearly longer or more detailed than the other sections of the article. There's also the fact that critical opinions on issues with objectivity in journalism vary, and putting too much undue weight on criticism seems like one is disparaging the very concept, or trying to reconfigure the entire article into a soap box or personal essay. Please be mindful of that before adding more contributions to the "Criticisms" section, or having that section focus entirely on United States and United Kingdom perspectives, while ignoring perspectives on the subject from everywhere else, even including e.g. continental Europe, Japan, South America, subsaharan Africa, etc. 
There's a lot of politically motivated persecution, demonisation or pressuring/influencing of the media worldwide, so the topic of media objectivity, integrity of journalistic conduct, self-serving media ownership and partisan influence are all topics being globally discussed and deserving serious attention. Wikipedia cannot discuss these topics, because it is not a dicussion forum, but it should try to provide as much of a global perspective on these issues as possible, while being mindful of the fact that journalistic objectivity is often under attack by various political actors the world over, for populist and propaganda reasons of limiting the freedom of the press. --ZemplinTemplar (talk) 09:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: A crucial article like this needs a far greater injection of a more global perspective