Monday, July 28, 2003
Let me give you one view of what that is, based on watching my craft evolve over 30 years as a senior editor. I think we're coming to the end of the era of "objectivity" that has dominated journalism over this time. We need to define a new ethic that lends legitimacy to opinion, honestly disclosed and disciplined by some sense of propriety.[...]
Impression: The sooner the press drops the conceit of "objectivity" the better. I'm not saying that reporters shouldn't attempt some pass at balanced reporting, but I'd rather know up front that it's up to me to figure out the real bottom line.
I mean, does anyone really think Chris "Rockford College" Hedges is capable of objectivity? How about Reuters' and other's use of Palestinians for reporting and photography in the West Bank and Gaza? Shouldn't that be on the table? I like Bill O'Reilly and all, but I've long since stopped trusting him to give me a rounded opinion. Admittedly, O'Reilly's is an editorial show, but the fact is he tries to sell his segments as balanced when they're anything but.
What I want is to know where a reporter stands, so that I can tell for myself if I believe they seem to have a balanced presentation in spite of the fact that they may have put Vladimir Lenin in the number one spot on their personal Top Ten Greatest Men of the 20th Century list.
Another aspect holding the press back from being honest in this is competition - the idea that they are everything to all people. "You don't need any other news sources, after all, we give you the complete, unbiased story." We all know that's bull, so stop the put-on.
Update: American Digest also comments.
