Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Objectivity vs. Neutrality

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Objectivity vs. Neutrality

    Has anybody else noticed how much of our conversation is directed by a devotion to neutrality, when really we should be more focused on objectivity?

    This happens most frequently in the mainstream media.

    Example: CNN reports "Donald Trump says migrant caravan full of terrorists". If you were devoted to objectivity, you would show the reality of the makeup of the asylum seekers, and call a lie a lie. But instead, all mainstream media (other than Fox, which is 90% propaganda) is devoted to the notion of neutrality, rather than that of objectivity. So they continue to host disingenuous discussions, with views from "both sides", about things that they know aren't real, and then they get upset when people simply choose the guys who said what they wanted to hear.

    I dont know how to fix it. But I know it's important, because this devotion to neutrality has made facts meaningless. So debates about climate change, gun control, immigration, etc., all become meaningless, as each opinion is as valid as the next.

    Thoughts?
    Larry David was once being heckled, long before any success. Heckler says "I'm taking my dog over to fuck your mother, weekly." Larry responds "I hate to tell you this, but your dog isn't liking it."

  • #2
    Here we see Joe Rogan acting as an apologist for Gavin McInnis. They repeatedly call him funny and misunderstood. They bring up the FBI classifying Proud Boys as a hate group, and then say "Kumia says its bullshit." They state that the Proud Boys started "as a joke". What a pathetic piece of journalism. Rogan is dangerous because he takes a lot of his far right guests claims at face value. This is neutrality. "The FBI says they're a hate group... but my buddy Kumia says its bullshit." Both sides, equally valid.

    Objective reporting would talk about the FBI classification, the incident in New York, including the event in question (public re-enactment of Chinese socialist being killed with a sword... fucking idiots...), etc... there are 2 spin cycles constantly working, and then there's objective reality. Media fails by presenting both spin cycles, and making you choose reality, rather than reporting objective truths. So we see not just mainstream news beholden to neutrality (to maintain access), but even the lower rungs of so-called journalism are tainted by this method of inquiry. I'm not sure Rogan is aware he does this, but it's very clear in this long-winded and weakly argued defense of the Proud Boys.

    Larry David was once being heckled, long before any success. Heckler says "I'm taking my dog over to fuck your mother, weekly." Larry responds "I hate to tell you this, but your dog isn't liking it."

    Comment


    • #3
      Another data point, this article from The Hill voices their full throated support for neutrality. I think the age they're speaking of is dead. Truth has been murdered through journalism's "neutral" take. The shift away from news towards entertainment enforces that you give equal weight to "both sides", regardless of reality. Their purpose is to muddy the waters rather than enlighten.

      I believe there should be less nuance, less "he said-she said", and more reporting the facts. CNN and Joe Rogan alike.

      https://thehill.com/opinion/white-ho...tral-reporting
      Larry David was once being heckled, long before any success. Heckler says "I'm taking my dog over to fuck your mother, weekly." Larry responds "I hate to tell you this, but your dog isn't liking it."

      Comment


      • #4
        You are spot n with that Rogan clip. I enjoy listening to him, but at times he gets so cringe worthy, you just have to turn away. I'm sure he'd say he does not claim to be a journalist and he tries to be open minded, which is the argument he uses with his Alex Jones friendship. But when you get as big as he is now, you have to be responsible. To an extent, he has, as he has moved away from a lot of the conspiracy theory stuff. But he still doesn't do his due diligence with a lot of stuff.
        Last edited by Sour Masher; 11-25-2018, 07:50 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          I think we can probably get even more nuanced than objectivity vs. neutrality. Another question that I think most news organizations grapple with is to what extent the spectrum of political/ideological perspectives or spins on each given issue are themselves "news" that should be reported. Obviously the Trump Administration and the legislative leadership of each of the two major parties in American politics have a great deal of power and influence on how issues are addressed or not, so there is presumably some news value to knowing and understanding their positions. But how much of your limited print space and broadcast time should be devoted to sharing and analyzing the political players' positions on the issues, versus reporting on the underlying facts and context of the issue and analyzing that, versus "objectively" fact-checking the political players' statements on the issue, versus analyzing the political options on the table and the likely fallout from/consequences of each? I don't think there are fast and easy answers to those questions, and I therefore have some sympathy for the press/news media here.

          Comment

          Working...
          X