I have questions about this notion of impartiality in the press...

[eeyore]

I studied journalism in college, and we were always preached at that it is the responsibility of a journalist to act as an impartial reporter. The best reporting is that which explores all sides of an issue without giving undue weight to one side or another.

Okay, fair enough, but who actually believes that it's possible to do this?

In the newspaper age, many had and still have names like The Talahassee Democrat, The Woodburn Independent, and The Fresno Republican. I can only assume that these papers were named to declare their political bent, and anyone who didn't like it could read something that was more to their liking politically. Of course, today, these are just names, because the media is "fair and balanced", right?

When did this notion of an unbiased news corps start, and why? Did it all start with television?

Wouldn't it be better if all news outlets just declared their allegiances instead of dancing around this impartiality crap? Shouldn't we just get on with it and have the Corporate News Network and Fox Republican News?

We all know that there's no such thing as an unbiased news source. Who the fuck do the press in this country think they're fooling? We know where they are all coming from and who their masters are.

Any jounalists in the house who want to defend this notion of unbiased reporting?

-eeyore

[Nite Owl]

1. I can see your point. It shouldn't

have to come to that though and it's really sad that things are that bad. At least in the old Soviet Union the public knew where things stood with the press, here the masses are being really fooled by the illusion of a free press. TV, especially cable is the worse and thing is people are working long hours and don't have the time to read and sift through things online.

[eeyore]

2. Who decided that the press should be unbiased?

You're right, the worst part is that the media puts on this act of being "fair and balanced" and the public buys it. I guess that's why I come to DU, to find a filtering of the news that is unabashedly Democratic. If there were a truly Democratic television news network I'd watch it.

I'm not saying that I want to only hear points of view that coincide with mine, quite the contrary. I just want honesty and transparency in reporting.

As it stands I trust absolutely no one. It's sad.

-eeyore

[bryant69]

3. Well I think initially almost all newspapers were party organs;

Here and in England. Although I think the idea of the unbiased press probably came about in the progressive era (the last part of the 19th century). At that time a lot of problems were brought to life through investigative reporting (not that much was done about it,but there were attempts). So there was the idea that the newspaper had just as much power as the politician.

Consider Nash vs. Boss Tweed for example.

Anyway this created the illusion that the media was suppsoed to be above the fray so to speak. But in fact most reporters have always been part of the fray.

Truthfully I think that in the long run the Media will right itself, although it will never be liberal enough for some. That doesn't mean we shouldn't critique it or criticize it (we should do more of that) but that through our struggles we can eventually turn things back mroe towards our direction.

I could be wrong.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[eeyore]

4. Thanks for the info

I never did take a journalism history class - guess I'll have to do some research.

"Truthfully I think that in the long run the Media will right itself, although it will never be liberal enough for some. That doesn't mean we shouldn't critique it or criticize it (we should do more of that) but that through our struggles we can eventually turn things back mroe towards our direction."

I'm not sure the media has ever been right since Watergate. Maybe the monied powers that be decided to never let that happen again and clamped down on investigative journalism.

I don't think it will be turned in our direction any time soon. We have a whole generation of "journalists" who are nothing more than spokesmodels. They have no mental acuity for asking the tough questions, and they have no sense of history or education to do so. All they know how to do is read the news.