Objective Journalism?
Melatonin
Babbler Join Date: 2003-03-15 Member: 14551Members, Constellation
Babbler Join Date: 2003-03-15 Member: 14551Members, Constellation
<div class="IPBDescription">the system sucks</div> <a href='http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/28/30008.html' target='_blank'>http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/28/30008.html</a>
this journalist was suspended from work for expressing an opinion on his day off!
now you cant tell me that we have objective coverage of events when journalist are so blatantly owned by 'the system' in such a way!
i mean, hes a writer for a computer magazine!
i think this points at the way that, ultimately 'independant writers' in our medias are only as independant as the people who own the companies that run their network/ paper/ website.
.. discuss!
this journalist was suspended from work for expressing an opinion on his day off!
now you cant tell me that we have objective coverage of events when journalist are so blatantly owned by 'the system' in such a way!
i mean, hes a writer for a computer magazine!
i think this points at the way that, ultimately 'independant writers' in our medias are only as independant as the people who own the companies that run their network/ paper/ website.
.. discuss!
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I'll be sure to place this story in the high priority section of my circular file cabinet.
Edit: Here's a story from the opposite direction- <a href='http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/11/opinion/11JORD.html?ex=1050638400&en=ea21e8c88feae21c&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE' target='_blank'>The News We Kept To Ourselves</a>
What kind of end does this entire network face for NOT speaking out?
Agreed. It's incredibly improbable that he was suspended for his views - after all, if I get fired for saying I'm a communist, I can sue for millions and win easily on any one of hundreds of anti-discrimination laws. However, if I don't show to work because I was arrested, I am without cause to complain. And trust me as a former California resident: no one gets arrested at a protest rally in San Francisco unless they really get out of hand, and do something like take a swing at a cop. Otherwise the whole damned city would be behind bars...
I suspect we are not hearing the whole story from either party, and likely never will. Not that it matters in the grand scheme...
(And I would point out that the whole thing is fabricated, as he is described as a technical columnist and yet does Macintosh work <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> )
Or something.
I agree. Normally I would do that silently (so as to conserve my post count <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> ) but this time I wanted to go on record. Just to be clear (not that you didn't already know this) the point of my post was that "theory of journalism" doesn't apply to this case. Specifically because the writer of the article implied that the man was fired for his beliefs and not jailed because of them.
I think we would all be a lot better off if we stop expecting journalists to be our Crusaders, our Saviours and Watch Dogs of the Government. Let's look at the media economy. In USA almost all media is commercially run. Thus each and every journalist, editor etc. are working to satisfy not only their readers, but certainly also their advertisers. Or owners in case your paper/tv station is owned by some pigolopy or William Hearst kind of guy.
Newspapers sell their copies at a heavily subsidised price, due to their large advertising income. That makes them susceptible to the whims and wishes of the advertisers. Run a too critical article on some industry conglomerate and they will withdraw their financial contributions to your operation. You also tend to get more "easily digestable" reporting in news papers. Wonder why they run all these life style sections and articles in the saturday newspaper? Because someone advertising for a super expensive designer B&O system feel much more happy if their full page colour ad appears next to an article about modern home style. Not a grim article about the starving people in a forlorn 3rd world country.
It goes a long way. There is one positive thing I can claim that my country's media landscape has: both commercially driven privately owned media AND publicly financed media. Then we get reporting from at least to biases, the bias of capitalisms realities, and the bias of not alienating the ruling party in the country. Our publicly financed media can go further in criticism of private corporations, whereas commercia media can critizice the government relentlessly without it has serious repercussions.
Getting back into theory, however, Imma writes:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Our publicly financed media can go further in criticism of private corporations, whereas commercia media can critizice the government relentlessly without it has serious repercussions. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This nice 'checks & balances' situation is only possible if private economy and government are strictly divided. Given one has influence over the other - and may I remind you that we established some threads ago that all western governments were more or less bought - the interests intermingle, and we're suddenly in a situation in which none of the two medias is efficient anymore - which gives only one more reason to defend the rights of the individual journalist because only her/his 'nonconformity' can lead to honest information.
For some reason this impossibility is strengthened when the media is involved.
There is no such thing as objective media.
A big reason is commercialism.
Particularly the American media seeks more to entertain than inform (a gross generalisation.)