03-01-2011, 06:35 PM
I don't think the issue is about deciding what is true and what is not true. Opinion will always differ on that. I think the issue is about allowing space or time (which costs a lot of money to the media outlet) to differing points of view.
A decent fair reporter will always give another point of view in the story. In the best of all possible worlds this OPV will be someone of fairly equal rank and prestige, so if you were to quote someone from the Brookings Foundation saying that Obama's economic policy is good and effective in producing a recovery, then you would quote someone from the American Enterprise Institute saying he blows his nose on Obama's position paper and his policy will lead to catastrophic inflation (or whatever). Basically you make the fight fair and you don't match the Brookings Foundation economist with a first-year business major taking his econ core class.
And that is pretty much how you discover if someone is trying to be fair. How many points of view are reflected in the story? Are the different points of view explained thoroughly?
If people read the stories they can see whether or not a reporter is being as objective as he can and whether he is trying to be fair. Swampy's right in saying that people need to be shown the difference between news and opinion. But the opinion v. news blurring takes place in electronic media mostly--print journalists have a little more time and leeway to present many points of view.
I think most reporters and editors would fight any move toward accreditation because who would do the accrediting? Would the organization change with the political winds? Would the academics squeeze all color from the story in their effort to be "objective?" And opinions on "objective" vary as well. There are a lot of people who believe that FOX News is "fair and balanced" because they are repeatedly told it is, but they don't examine what is being said on the broadcasts and they don't try to exercise any critical judgment. (I don't mention MSNBC here because that network makes no pretense of fairness and balance.)
If you had a bunch of academics deciding what is "objective" and appropriate for broadcast or print, then you would have to find academics who have never, ever accepted grants from the government or from a foundation that accepts grants from the government. I don't think there are many of those people around.
The St. Petersburg Times is an excellent paper, and it is officially nonprofit. It is run by a foundation with 501c3 status. To avoid any trouble with its nonprofit status, the Times no longer endorses candidates. I think nonprofit is the model of the future.
Sorry about the length.
A decent fair reporter will always give another point of view in the story. In the best of all possible worlds this OPV will be someone of fairly equal rank and prestige, so if you were to quote someone from the Brookings Foundation saying that Obama's economic policy is good and effective in producing a recovery, then you would quote someone from the American Enterprise Institute saying he blows his nose on Obama's position paper and his policy will lead to catastrophic inflation (or whatever). Basically you make the fight fair and you don't match the Brookings Foundation economist with a first-year business major taking his econ core class.
And that is pretty much how you discover if someone is trying to be fair. How many points of view are reflected in the story? Are the different points of view explained thoroughly?
If people read the stories they can see whether or not a reporter is being as objective as he can and whether he is trying to be fair. Swampy's right in saying that people need to be shown the difference between news and opinion. But the opinion v. news blurring takes place in electronic media mostly--print journalists have a little more time and leeway to present many points of view.
I think most reporters and editors would fight any move toward accreditation because who would do the accrediting? Would the organization change with the political winds? Would the academics squeeze all color from the story in their effort to be "objective?" And opinions on "objective" vary as well. There are a lot of people who believe that FOX News is "fair and balanced" because they are repeatedly told it is, but they don't examine what is being said on the broadcasts and they don't try to exercise any critical judgment. (I don't mention MSNBC here because that network makes no pretense of fairness and balance.)
If you had a bunch of academics deciding what is "objective" and appropriate for broadcast or print, then you would have to find academics who have never, ever accepted grants from the government or from a foundation that accepts grants from the government. I don't think there are many of those people around.
The St. Petersburg Times is an excellent paper, and it is officially nonprofit. It is run by a foundation with 501c3 status. To avoid any trouble with its nonprofit status, the Times no longer endorses candidates. I think nonprofit is the model of the future.
Sorry about the length.