What Is Fair and Balanced Reporting?
Donald Trump waves to the crowd
I’m spending the weekend with a friend who reads the digital version of the New York Times every day, though he points out it has a liberal bias because so many of its articles bash Trump.
This caused me to ask, “What would an ‘objective’ news source look like? Would objective writing have an equal balance of supportive and negative reporting? That sounds reasonable on the face of it, but think for a second what that means. Consider reporting on climate change. Does fairness require an equal number of articles suggesting that the subject is a hoax? That wouldn’t be fair; that would be stupid. I think there’s an analogy with Trump.”
What’s a reasonable approach when the president of the United States is a pathological liar, vigorously enriching himself and his family via his office, further engorging the top 1% with tax “reform,” environmental destruction, the defunding of public programs, banking deregulation, etc.? How many articles supporting him constitute properly balanced journalism?
Think of all the nation states that, through history, regressed from governments that served the people into some sort of fascism or tyranny. How should their news sources have covered those events? “Fairly?” What does that mean, exactly?
Maybe you’re struggling with that one. I’m not.
Craig,
Of course you not struggling with concepts such as fairness and objectivity. Long ago you abandoned such concepts in favour of ” belief ” and advocacy.
However, you’re not a major media outlet with an obligation to be fair and objective to readership, staff and society. When any media outlet abandons objectivity, it becomes part of a propaganda machine and loses creditably.
Most American media has already lost credibility and is now regarded as more untrustworthy and despised than politicians.
I agree the concept of “fairness” is very difficult to define. The unique meaning of “fairness” is almost impossible to articulate. Certainly “fairness” seems pretty much unique to the English language and spirit of English speaking peoples.
(Like humour, it’s pointless to argue about, you either get it, or you don’t !)
That’s the value of news aggregators like ‘RealClear Politics’ offering a broad spectrum of articles selected from media outlets expressing the widest possible selection of views. By reading contrary views or variations of opinion it’s possible to gain a more balanced and objective opinion (if balance and objectivity are what you desire).
The American left and leftist media, along with most of the political elite are paying the price for their hubris and contempt of the American people. The rise of US populism isn’t caused by any nefarious “Russian” interference, but is the direct result of a disconnect between different divisions in American society.
The old interpretations no longer apply, and refusing to accept reality has led to not just Trump, but the entire Trump phenomenon.
An element of that phenomenon is the increasing belief environmental concerns have been hi-jacked by advocates with covert political agenda. This belief has grown exponentially as a certain types of environmental advocacy became increasingly confused with leftist activism.
Honesty and objectivity are the best weapons in the arsenal of any sincere advocate.
Simply decrying and abusing enemies isn’t enough. Logical, well reasoned arguments to persuade and gather widespread support are essential.
The average member of society looks for sincerity when selecting candidates. In nations with representative government systems, politicians occupy a complex relationship with the electorate. On the on hand they must be leaders while simultaneously reflecting and representing the opinions or “will” of the electors.
Obviously, the two will often conflict and the strength of any candidate is the ability to manage both aspirations.
Craig, in your own small world of influence, you face the same challenge. What’s more important, your personal political philosophy or environmental progress ?
Stubbornly yelling “both are the same” with increasing desperation, while refusing to even discuss the possibility that advances in technology and scientific knowledge are rendering your old beliefs inaccurate and obsolete, isn’t objective or honest and lessens your credibility.
The New York Times is only one media outlet of many, suffering from a disconnect of journalists with readership. Once, journalists represented the various divides amidst the American community. Today, the average journalist has little ‘life experience’, outside being educated at one of a number of like minded, left leaning universities. Often these journalists are young, expressing views and opinions formed by associating with a narrow range of social contacts.
Invariably, these journalists start with a preconceived idea, then set out to seek only such information as will support that belief.
Is it any wonder the gener5al public turned to social media for information ?
Here’s a challenge for you Craig ! I would be grateful if you would read and comment on the heartfelt article written by normally liberal author Saritha Prabhuhttp. (It appeared in the Federalist, not my favourite news outlet).
://thefederalist.com/2018/05/24/im-democrat-lefts-russia-gaslighting-scares-trump/
Saritha Prabhu is hardly a journalist with whom I usually agree, but one must respect her dedication to accuracy and objectivity for that reason she is a journalist whose opinions I believe are worthy of consideration.
Contrast her style with that of Time magazine’s headline ” Why Donald Trump Can’t Kill the Truth “.
The Times article was a well written piece by film maker Errol Morris about the nature of truth, essentially contrasting commonly held and often repeated truths, which are in fact inaccurate.
Morris illustrates his point by examining claims by the Washington Post of ” 3000 lies told by Donald Trump” , with commonly held inaccuracies.
Morris examples cite the Washington Post’s inclusion of the President stating during a speech the phrase a”since Columbus discovered America”, and in another off the cuff remark he referred to ” Henry Ford invented the assembly line” and lastly the President stated ” FDR served 16 years as President”.
(all are inaccurate, Columbus actually discovered the West Indies, Henry Ford improved the assembly line by using the moving platforms of a conveyor system, and FDR died during his forth term having served only from 1933-1945}
The point Morris illustrates is, are these deliberate “lies” or simply inaccuracies used in every day parlance by the average man. If so, isn’t the Washington Post deliberately “lying” or distorting with “Fake News”, by publishing a headline designed to be long remembered and often quoted, while the absurdity of the information on which the claim was based is long forgotten ?
That’s not journalism, it’s partisan political warfare using cynical propaganda techniques.
The nature of “truth” is very subjective, especially when “truth” and “belief” merge.
Craig, since you challange the President veracity, it’s only fair we examine your own statements, (written deliberately for political purpose).
You state ” [President Trump] is vigorously enriching himself and his family via his office “. You state this accusation as if you have incontrovertible evidence and personal knowledge !
In reality, no such knowledge exists, nor is there any evidence. What you are doing is passing off an opinion, based on little more than animosity and speculation, as fact. You do so without a qualm, because you believe you are entitled to “lie” about someone you consider a liar, …and well,… it might be true !
That’s the moral slippery slope you encounter when you abandon objectivity for political partisanship !