.... is just way too much to handle. That was my first thought when going over the report on objectivity and the changing media in the CJR. But when I thought about the reasons I wasn't prepared to redefine the way I think about journalism, I realized it's probably because they are right.
Objectivity is easier than bias.
We've all been taught the ropes of journalism, so at this point, I think it's harder to find ways to make things work by breaking the mold than to just go with it.
I think the most interesting point they made in the report was that objectivity originally made its way into journalism for economic reasons - since it was expensive to produce journalism back in the day, the media had to appeal to as many readers as possible. Today, that is clearly not the case. With the MSM moving to the Internet, there' s a lot less worry about readership and money via subscriptions and news stand sales - instead, journalists can be as bias as they want and appeal to as few people as they want.
hmm .... it's so crazy, it just might work.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Monday, September 8, 2008
Agenda-shifting
Yes, all journalists are agenda-setters. I find it hard to argue that and simutaneously find it the weakest argument critics have against journalism.
By nature that's what journalism is and that's what an editor's job is. They just can't cover everything so they pick what they think has the most relevance in society. There's no 100% fair way to do that and I think it's something that every good editor struggles with. Sometimes they get it right and sometimes they make mistakes.
But the chasm that has existed between readers and editors (and that has fueled an editors' power to decide the news solely) is shrinking. We're talking digital age again (see a pattern in this blog - coupled with the fact that I'm blogging at all). This isn't a revelation anymore - digitalization is changing the way the media work and that includes how they choose and report on stories.
I think the burden of agenda-setting is falling into the hands of the public but honestly, I'm not sure how to feel about that. Think about it: the field of journalism was created because the public needed an educated, unbiased body to do this work for them, and now the roles are reversing back? Why don't we just go ahead and eliminate the electoral college too?
By nature that's what journalism is and that's what an editor's job is. They just can't cover everything so they pick what they think has the most relevance in society. There's no 100% fair way to do that and I think it's something that every good editor struggles with. Sometimes they get it right and sometimes they make mistakes.
But the chasm that has existed between readers and editors (and that has fueled an editors' power to decide the news solely) is shrinking. We're talking digital age again (see a pattern in this blog - coupled with the fact that I'm blogging at all). This isn't a revelation anymore - digitalization is changing the way the media work and that includes how they choose and report on stories.
I think the burden of agenda-setting is falling into the hands of the public but honestly, I'm not sure how to feel about that. Think about it: the field of journalism was created because the public needed an educated, unbiased body to do this work for them, and now the roles are reversing back? Why don't we just go ahead and eliminate the electoral college too?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)