Richard Landes has a lengthy but must-read essay taking a look at the current set of media scandals and analyzing them through the prism of terminology he has developed to explain the Pallywood phenomenon. Set aside some time and don't miss this: Meditations on Reutersgate: What’s Going on in the MSM?
Agreed, a "must read" absolutely, and not really all that lengthy. Balanced, thoughtful, probative, evenly tempered, well measured and well clarified throughout.
Too, and fittingly, a pointer to the German video which is making the rounds.
And I can't resist my favorite journalist quote, which very much points to what journos and the media in general could be, if they chose:
"Serious, careful, honest journalism is essential, not because it is a guiding light but because it is a form of honorable behavior, involving the reporter and the reader."Martha Gellhorn
Really, a beautifully wrought statement since it aphoristically underscores a foundational essence and requisite. Unfortunately it's a fundamental, a foundational essence which all too many journos, consciously and decidedly, choose to ignore. Other motives are involved as well, and that's why the Landes essay is genuinely rich in supplying and pointing to other details, other motives, undercurrents of perception, etc.
I think that some people believe that there is no such thing as objective truth, and so one certainly should not expect it from the media. One young French journalist I met years ago argued strenuously against the American notion of objective journalism.
I recently tried to recount to a British student my view of journalism: Maybe one can never reach full objectivity, I told him, but in trying to be as thorough and balanced as possible, one ends up by being more accurate than if one hadn't tried at all. One can approach objectivity asymptotically: ever approaching it even if never actually reaching it. He just shook his head in disbelief. An American reporter (admittedly on lifestyle, not politics) had the same reaction.
Is there something wrong with me? Am I too naive? I guess I don't know the conditions under which journalists work. Maybe it's the pressure of deadlines, or the fact that reporters have to give editors what they want. Or maybe it's too hard to get a good overall perspective when one is in the thick of things. But still...
Another thing: I may be wrong, but it seems to me that the same people who claim that there is no such thing as objectivity don't hesitate to take sides. Hey, if one side has no monopoly on the truth, then neither does the other.
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Agreed, a "must read" absolutely, and not really all that lengthy. Balanced, thoughtful, probative, evenly tempered, well measured and well clarified throughout.
Too, and fittingly, a pointer to the German video which is making the rounds.
And I can't resist my favorite journalist quote, which very much points to what journos and the media in general could be, if they chose:
"Serious, careful, honest journalism is essential, not because it is a guiding light but because it is a form of honorable behavior, involving the reporter and the reader." Martha Gellhorn
Really, a beautifully wrought statement since it aphoristically underscores a foundational essence and requisite. Unfortunately it's a fundamental, a foundational essence which all too many journos, consciously and decidedly, choose to ignore. Other motives are involved as well, and that's why the Landes essay is genuinely rich in supplying and pointing to other details, other motives, undercurrents of perception, etc.
I think that some people believe that there is no such thing as objective truth, and so one certainly should not expect it from the media. One young French journalist I met years ago argued strenuously against the American notion of objective journalism.
I recently tried to recount to a British student my view of journalism: Maybe one can never reach full objectivity, I told him, but in trying to be as thorough and balanced as possible, one ends up by being more accurate than if one hadn't tried at all. One can approach objectivity asymptotically: ever approaching it even if never actually reaching it. He just shook his head in disbelief. An American reporter (admittedly on lifestyle, not politics) had the same reaction.
Is there something wrong with me? Am I too naive? I guess I don't know the conditions under which journalists work. Maybe it's the pressure of deadlines, or the fact that reporters have to give editors what they want. Or maybe it's too hard to get a good overall perspective when one is in the thick of things. But still...
Another thing: I may be wrong, but it seems to me that the same people who claim that there is no such thing as objectivity don't hesitate to take sides. Hey, if one side has no monopoly on the truth, then neither does the other.