Journalism vs opinion

[KafirChobee]

The other day on (PBS's) The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, there was an interesting discussion on what qualifies as journalism (ist) and what is opinion posing as journalmism (Rush Limbaugh, etc).

Defined jouralism is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism
or
http://www.journalism.org/

What I found interesting was that the person (s) defining jounalism as an aquiring of the facts on an issue and presenting them in as unbiased a format as possible (note nearly everyone has some biase, it is a matter of whether they ignore some facts to present a totally biased case, or whether they present all the facts and allow the people to interpret the material for themselves). Where as, there are those posing as journalists that use conjecture as facts to present a completely biased theory as though it were fact.

Examples: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/expose/
Investigative journalism

Pick any blog for their opinion on what constitutes journalism.

The thing is, presenting the facts on a news worthy item and then saying "my opinion on this is", is still a part of being a journalist- it's what we call "editorials". Taking only the facts or creating "fictitious facts" (lies) to make a point is not. imo

There are those among the neighborhood of this .org more qualified than I, but for me opinion must be a seperate thing from a comperhensive presentation of the facts. Presenting opinion as journalism, is not journalism.

Views, perceptions, even opinions - welcomed. :balloon2:

[Husar]

I once saw that news thingie at midnight on RTL and they reported about that creationist museum in the US. They basically ridiculed the whole concept, made the people look like idiots and also ridiculed people who would support that. It was some time ago, so I don't remember the details.
While I'm not a supporter of that creationist museum myself(despite being christian, I think the money could be better spent and some of their ideas may indeed be whacky) I found their obvious bias and ridiculing so bad I'd almost written them something in response(and I never do that usually). I thought that journalism should be unbiased and leave people to form their own opinion, but this particular news report was really disgusting in that regard, it wasn't reporting, it was a pre-formed opinion and they basically said if you disagree with them, you're an idiot.:wall:

Maybe I should never watch their news ever again because if they have a sinmilar but better hidden agenda in other cases as well, how can I trust them again? I want my news in a neutral way and form my own opinion, I don't need a news reporter to tell me what I should think.:thumbsdown:

[Don Corleone]

Interesting thread. I don't view Rush Limbaugh as a newsman, or even a political hack. He's more a cheerleader. He rides coattails. He doesn't formulate policy, he literally (and to his credit, avowedly) makes his living off of soft-demagoguery.

There's another whole class of talk radio though that I think makes a better case for your argument, KC. What about the Laura Ingrams of the world? What about Daniel Shore? Both of whom freely admit they have a strong bias to their position pieces (although their positions are like night and day). Should we trust Daniel Shore more because he has 'real news credentials'? He would actually argue no, and that's the one bit of respect I've got for that shill.

I think position advocacy in the media is fine, so long as it's presented that way. When you start blurring the lines and claim you're an objective, unbiased presenter of the news *cough* *New York Times* *cough* but in reality you're nothing more than a position advocate (with good credentials), there in lies the danger. Oh alright, I'll toss in FoxNews if it will make you all feel better, though I'll note whenever I post a FoxNews link that takes a lefty slant, nobody whines about FoxNews.

[KafirChobee]

Don, it isn't so much that people think of Rush as a newsman - as they do a journalist. Some actually believe the drivile coming from his mouth has some form of factual substance - and some of it might, but it is a matter of taking a small piece of truth, twisting it, creating an unfounded biase around it and presenting it as though it were all the gospel truth. That the other guys are always wrong and his side always right, or atleast he is.

As to slanting the reporting of a news story to conform to the presupposed biase of a news agency. It happens. I've noticed the NY Times printing alot more retractions lately then I can recall in the past, but atleast they acknowledge their failure to be accurate. Where as, others simply ignore theirs or expand on the correctness of it.

It is a curiousity to me, and one of the reasons I attempted to open this discussion, that people have a tendency to migrate toward a news source more for the recertification of their stand on issues, than the truths of the issue itself.

Taking a premise and building facts around it to support it in a revisionist manner is almost a time honored method of opinionistic preference. But, is it really journalism? Or, is it promoting an opinion through the selective use of a few facts and the creative deletion of facts that do not coincide with the intended message.

It is of course an inherent human condition to promote their ideologies on others, whether there is merit to it or not. Regardless, it is what "I" believe and therefore it is the absolute truth ... for me ... and all others ought to believe as I do. The only reason they don't is because they listen to other truths. Not my truth, but the other truth.

There is only one truth - presenting the facts and not preassuming is the objective of real journalism. Other wise we get the Duke frenzy (the boys were innocent from the go, but all the news agencies wanted was a juicy story), and a pandomanium about Paris Hilton. Let alone the energy wasted on O.J..

What if Bush had a news conference and no one showed up? What if journalists began investigating the why and where for of the oil corporation profits.

What if.

[Brenus]

Interesting, I was confronted to journalism and opinion during my NGO/Charities moment.
I would agree about journalism as a decent job IF the journalists stop to pretend to be the morality/truth itself.
I was in few conflict, involved and witness. I know that what I see is just around 500 meters from where I stand, and I don’t pretend to know all. I am aware people just didn’t tell me all the truth, for several reasons… But not a journalist… I REMEMBER being in Novi Sad during the Serbian Revolution and watching BBC, asking myself if I was in the same country.
We thought that with a so-called free media we will have a least a piece of truth…Did it happened? No, because from the State Control, media went in Money Control. If you can’t sell, no need to publish.
Which media did defend, or just try to defend the Serbs in Bosnia and Croatia: None, zero. Which so-call independent journalists did questioned Jamie Shee during the NATO Bombing Campaign against this Serbia? Same answer. Is it because journalists are stupid? No, but they are to sell…
To be honest when I see a journalist explaining the Yugoslav Crisis then the same one, one week after, in Palestine and doing the same thing about this region, I doubt she/he has a single clue of the complexity of both problems.
But it is not ONLY a matter of ignorance; it is as well a conformism, a deliberated lie sometimes, and the will to play safe.
I will refer again to Former Yugoslavia. A journalist interviewed a Serbian Croat just before the “peaceful reintegration” of Vukovar Region within the Republic of Croatia. My former Translator did the job for the guy. When the newspaper was to sell, she couldn’t translate to the Serb what the journalist wrote because all what was said was distorted and manipulated…:furious3:

Journalism is Opinion, conformism, obedience to powers and good understanding of self interest, in most of the times. A few journalists save honour of the profession, and publish underground articles and books. I met some.:2thumbsup:
I could speak of the Journalist fascination for the military, which play a good part in why no question were asked in Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo, and now in Iraq (even in Desert Storm Operation).
I could speak of the lack of knowledge about religion, history… Journalists nowadays treat the instant, the moment, and are not interested in the roots of problem. Why should they? The next week Paris Hilton story will be in front pages, so why bother of Darfur and Chechnya? Why to spend hours of reading old stories, history and political analyses from the last decades, or to open a map to see if there is some minerals in the region?:dizzy2:

Journalists are just giving in, they surrender to the time where you don’t need a brain to succeed but a :daisy:… “Soit belle et tais-toi”, be beautiful and shut-up is back, for men and women. Don’t think, and get your check at the end of the month…
We are not interested any more in truth but in glamour. So the journalists are just a mirror which provides what we want.
Zola would’nt has a chance to be published today… But Dreyfus would have published a good book, co-written with Esterhadzy, mind you…:beam:

[Navaros]

I've never seen any modern day journalist who's writing is not constantly laced with opinion-based words. Ie: Using the 'word' "abortion" is an opinion-based word meant to justify killing a baby and implicitly trying to masquerade that action as something else and therefore goading the reader/viewer/listener into agreeing it is a legitimate act. The the 'word' "abortion" is constantly used as if it is opinion-neutral even though in fact it is not.

That is just one example of many. Things like this are what ensure it's no exaggeration to say that all secular media has a leftwing extremist bias that it constantly tries to shove down everyone's throat.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Journalists aren't supposed to be objective, they're supposed to write things that sell newspapers. Sometimes the truth sells best, but more often it sells more to exaggerate and/or manipulate heavily. "Fashionable themes" also sells a lot: one week the paper decides to it's "fashionable" with murder, so the reader gets the impression that there's a sudden wave of murders this week. Another week a wave of car accident articles, even though there may not be more car accidents that week than any other. Apparently, reporting about the most talentless of the celebrities also sells more than reporting about more important things. Nobody is buying papers with numerous articles about the situation in Africa, although in Africa there are currently plenty of conflicts, starvation etc that overshadows events elsewhere. Apparently, starvation in Asia sell more than starvation in Africa, or perhaps it's easier to get journalists to be stationed in Asia than in Africa? Etc. etc. Newspapers have gone from being a way to objectively express silenced opinions (in the 18th century and a bit ahead) to being a completely commercial tool of making money. And I'm afraid it's impossible to create a scenario where there's an incentive for journalists and newspaper producers to report events more truthfully. There IS an incentive to not exaggerate and lie TOO much, since that means loss of money, but there's no incentive to be completely correct.

[Rodion Romanovich]

I've never seen any modern day journalist who's writing is not constantly laced with opinion-based words.
I particularly like the threatens/warns combo of words. If it's a bad guy he "threatens" with death/war unless certain requirements are met, if it's a good guy, he "warns" of death/war unless certain requirements are met :laugh4:

[KafirChobee]

Found this, thought I'ld share:

ttp://www.whitehouse.org/media/action.asp
moderator note: interested readers can add "h" and copy/paste the url to their browser address bar to see the site -Kukri

Now, it's not to be taken serious. But, out of curiousity I sent a couple of the premade messages off. Surprisingly I received some "canned" responses to them. Had anyone actually read what was sent I would think the newsagency would have surmised it was a joke. Then again, no one ever said the media (in general) has a sense of humor. They may have believed the responses were real?