Skip to main content

Home/ Tam News Lab/ "Impartial" journalism: Are we kidding ourselves? (1st and 2nd HW, 10.29)
Jonah Steinhart

"Impartial" journalism: Are we kidding ourselves? (1st and 2nd HW, 10.29) - 81 views

started by Jonah Steinhart on 29 Oct 13
  • Jonah Steinhart
    #1 Jonah Steinhart on 29 Oct 13
     
    This is a long but informative online discussion about the kind of impartial approach to news writing practiced by the Tam News. Bill Keller defends the philosophy of impartial journalism embraced by the New York Times and The Tam News. Glenn Greenwald says impartial journalism is a myth and you are kidding yourselves; every journalist is an activist and you might as well be open about that.

    Whom do you side with - Keller or Greenwald - and why? Read the story below then post a comment explaining your point of view.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/28/opinion/a-conversation-in-lieu-of-a-column.html?pagewanted=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20131028&_r=0
  • Ariana Agnew
    #2 Ariana Agnew on 30 Oct 13
     
    I think that it is possible to be impartial (though it may be tough), but known "allegiances" can make us seem biased- for example (going off my previous homework), if MSNBC quoted a Republican source and then pointed out they were wrong, it would seem biased, even if it were true. Also, I think (ethical) media and journalism isn't seen by people so much as the harsh, power-stripping things society often rants about as something that really exists- it can only be understood if you're a part of it.
  • Cam Vernali
    #3 Cam Vernali on 30 Oct 13
     
    This article really showcased some good points from both sides of the differing opinions about impartiality in journalism in today. While Keller and Greenwald both had strong arguments and fought their side passionately, I personally agree with Greenwald and think that no matter how hard a journalist may try, it is just human nature that people are always slightly biased toward one side over the other. However, in spite of Greenwald's opinion, journalists should still strive to make an article as impartial and unbiased as possible in order for other people to base their own decision off of it. Even though it may be difficult to keep your point of view out of your writing 100% of the time, without impartial journalism we would be living in a world dominated by opinions over facts.
  • Tandis S
    #4 Tandis S on 30 Oct 13
     
    " Is Glenn Greenwald the Future of News?" is a very well written article defending and explaining a lot of strong points from both sides. Personally, I agree with Glenn Greenwald; it is impossible to keep one's bias out of journalism, and so perfect impartial journalism is simply impossible to reach. We unintentionally, through our word choice, sentence structure and tone, will always reveal our unconscious bias. But even though we cannot achieve pure impartial journalism, I believe we should still try our best to write without our bias opinions, as much as possible, to keep journalism as a more truthful and factual medium, not one overloaded with opinions.
  • Claire Donohue
    #5 Claire Donohue on 31 Oct 13
     
    I really enjoyed the conversation format of this article. I think both sides make strong points, but I don't agree whole heatedly with either. I do believe that as hard a journalist may try it is impossible to remove every little bit of bias. The placement of words and sentences and even punctuation can show little hints of bias. For example if I were to place a certain word first or start out with only sentences in support of an argument even if those sentences were pure hard fact it might still come across which side I was on. So I do agree with Greenwald that every piece of writing has opinion. I think he is correct in saying that "We all intrinsically perceive and process the world through subjective prisms." But I disagree with his next line, "What is the value in pretending otherwise?" I don't think classifying trying as pretending is fair. If a journalist is purposely trying to persuade readers to take his/her side and calling it news then it does not have value. But if a journalist is trying his hardest to stay objective then I do not think that's considered pretending. I think that's simply considered trying to write a news story. Although it's impossible to write a strictly objective piece I don't think that is a reason to stop trying. Writing a news story, it is the journalists job to deliver as much information and fact as possible, as long as that is their main goal the story has value.
  • Jackson Gathard
    #6 Jackson Gathard on 31 Oct 13
     
    I think that we should keep our opinions out of news writing and make our articles as impartial as possible. It may be hard to do this completely and we do things that portray bias unconsciously like tone, word choice, and source selection. If the reader is being pulled in different directions by news articles they are never going to get the full story, with out manipulated information. A news article should just provide the reader with the information and it's the reader's job to decide what they think about it and forms an opinion. It may be impossible to make articles completely impartial but what we can do as journalists is try our hardest is to keep our opinion out of news writing.
  • Ethan Lawrence
    #7 Ethan Lawrence on 31 Oct 13
     
    I thought that this article was very interesting and gave two very different perspectives on journalism. I think i find myself in between the controversy because i believe that every article written leaks a degree of bias and that we should try our best to not put an opinion into the writers mind and to let the writer think on their own. However, I think that if the journalist is not purposefully showing bias then he/she should not be accused because how hard it is to write an article without showing your bias. This article was very interesting because I am intrigued on how profesional writers believe the evolution of journalism has differed.
  • Hailey Miller
    #8 Hailey Miller on 31 Oct 13
     
    I am caught in the middle of these two very different arguments for a number of reasons. First off, I do agree with Greenwald's thinking of how even with the simplest of choices, our bias unconsciously influences us. Every phrase we write, every question, every little thing can appear to have a biased opinion. Yet I also don't agree with him because I do not think we should just give up on trying to mask our bias, and come right out and say it. I believe it is a news writer's job to try to take out their personal opinion and give us the raw facts. It is then up to the reader to decide what he or she thinks about the topic. If everyone just came out and said their honest opinion, our world would be over run with opinions but without any facts to base them on. It's not news if you aren't stating news; it's then just your opinion instead.
  • Marley Townsend
    #9 Marley Townsend on 31 Oct 13
     
    The passages exchanged between Bill Keller and Glenn Greenwald forced me to consider changing my pre-standing opinion on the subject of opinions in news writing. Previously, I felt that personal opinion could be an effective method of delivering good news to those who would otherwise be disinterested. I believed that objective journalism was bland in it's personality-devoid state, and that eventually no one would find that interesting enough to read. However, after reading the arguments sent back and forth between Keller and Greenwald, I have changed my mind. News writing, I think, must be devoid of opinion. Greenwald called this kind of writing "dishonest", as if the journalists are bitterly shading their own desires and motives, but I see it as powerful. As Keller writes, "I think most readers trust us more because they sense that we have done diligence, not just made a case." He goes on to point out that we all automatically associate an opinion with a negative or positive connotation based on our own beliefs. He uses the New York Times as an example for non-liberals, but I noticed it myself while watching Fox News for a previous homework assignment. Since I was raised in a fiercely liberal household, in a fairly liberal area, and uphold my own liberal values based on information gathered from traditionally liberal sources, I automatically felt the need to discredit anything anyone said on Fox News as false, overdone, or an attack on my own beliefs and principles. This was because they showed bias and opinions that conflicted mine. I could not focus on the truth they were conveying, only the "personality" that Greenwald seems to think is so important. This impeded my fact-gathering.
    In conclusion, I agree completely with Keller. Journalism should be the gathering and distribution of the most accurate and clear facts possible. It is the reader's job to form an opinion from those facts, not the journalist's (unless they are a clearly described opinion writer in the opinion section.) As Keller says, "I believe the need for impartial journalism is greater than it has ever been, because we live now in a world of affinity-based media, where citizens can and do construct echo chambers of their own beliefs. It is altogether too easy to feel "informed" without ever encountering information that challenges our prejudices."
  • avi cahn
    #10 avi cahn on 31 Oct 13
     
    I thought that it was open minded of the two writers to engage in this debate, and it was important for them to publish it so the public can take a stance on the two ideas. I am not sure who's side I agree with, both contributed interesting ideas to the conversation. If a writer uses their opinion in an article some readers may think of it as fact and will not think independently and develop individual ideas. It is important to address the fact that all writing is bound to have the writer's opinion in it. Even in "subjective" news writing the diction of a writer allows a reader to subconsciously develop ideas supported by the writer. It takes an open minded individual to read writing that is clearly against ones beliefs. For this reason I think that if all journalism is clearly opinionated then readers will only go to the publications they know support their beliefs. I am still undecided about weather journalistic writing should be "subjective" or if writers should admit their opinions openly.
  • Isabella Schloss
    #11 Isabella Schloss on 31 Oct 13
     
    I believe that everyone has a bias on most issues, whether we know it or not. Though these biases may get in the way of finding the truth, it is the journalists job to put aside their opinions and be objective. Readers have a right to know the facts before they chose a side. If they are told someone else's views on the subject, they may not be educated enough on the issue. If an article is going to feature the writer's opinion, it should be labelled as an opinion piece and not a news article. I agree with Bill Keller, journalism should be impartial.
  • ryder wood
    #12 ryder wood on 31 Oct 13
     
    I enjoyed the article and thought that it really showed two opposing sides of Journalism. Personally I would have to lean more towards Greenwald, however I think Keller also makes valid points. Journalism will never be pure 100% fact without a hint of biased thrown in. While I would like to believe that it's possible, I think subconsciously its impossible to write without your viewpoints sort of showing through. But, that doesn't mean that you shouldn't try. An article should state both sides fairly and equally as it applies to the story at hand. If the facts are presented in a way that is fair and as unbiased as possible, then it should be the readers job to form their own personal opinions from that article.
  • Paula Venables
    #13 Paula Venables on 31 Oct 13
     
    Glenn Greenwald and Bill Keller both write for a living, so, as expected, the language was interesting, engaging and informative. I, personally, switched sides of the arguments a few times. As I am not a fan of objective writing, I went in to this article assuming that I would be siding with Greenwald. But by the third or fourth letter, I was backing Keller full-court. While I think Greenwald makes a valid point about everyone having opinions that offer themselves up constantly, even in the most subtle of ways, I agree with Keller in his argument that that fact alone should not keep journalists from striving to reveal objective truth. Greenwald made one other point that hit home with me, that in trying to be truth based, journalist often end up "opting instead for a cowardly and unhelpful "here's-what-both-sides-say-and-I-won't-resolve-the-conflicts" formulation." I have read many an article where I got to the end and had no better idea what to believe or which side to take, and it is exactly because of this that I support Keller's quest for news writing with as little subjectivity as possible. So often I have wished and hoped and prayed that there was just one article I could read that would give me facts and nothing but the facts so I could then form my own opinion. Greenwald complains that then facts are often misrepresented, with journalists trying to be "too fair" in their portrayal. This reminds me of a favorite preschool-teacher-saying, "what is fair is not always what is equal." And although we, as new journalists, are taught to be objective, we are also taught that fair is what's in the facts, if one side had more evidence, you can mention it more frequently. One of Greenwald's ideals that particularly bothered me as well was that journalism was becoming boring and need to be made more "interesting." This is all to eerily similar to the movie we just finished in class, The Network, where they, too, are trying to spice up their form of mass media communication, at all costs. The result is an entire society's unquestioning devotion to a singular, charismatic, opinionated person. Just one person's individual thoughts, opinion, and ideals were shaping a nation. This is exactly what impartial journalism rightfully tries to avoid. By presenting readers with just facts, you are giving them the option to choose their own opinion, instead of presenting them with opinions that they might misperceive as facts. The last factor I'd like to discuss that played a role in my change of heart was each journalist's style of writing. Greenwald has a dramatic, semi-over the top, wordy style of writing. While I might use all those words to describe my own writing, there was something about his that rubbed me the wrong way. His insults seemed to be much lower blows, and were delivered much less tactfully and with much less wit than Keller's. Keller had a clean, intellegent style of writing, yet it was not with out personality. A sassy comment here, a well placed dig, and short, direct, Edna-like sentences kept his writing style crisp and relatable. So, amusingly enough, I found my own opinion changed by an opinion piece about opinion and now support objective (or as near as we can get) journalism. I still don't like it, and would much prefer to write long, rambling, passionate, rants stuffed to the brim with my own biases, but I see it as the better, and only option, in the world of news writing. Well done, Keller, well done.
  • Maddy Sebastien
    #14 Maddy Sebastien on 31 Oct 13
     
    While both Greenwald and Keller both presented impressive arguments along with supportive evidence as a proper debate should include, by the end I was siding with who I agreed with from the beginning; Greenwald. Although Keller does make valid points about how our freedom and speech and opinions has the ability to bring writing to life, that sort of journalism has a time and place and news writing is not the time nor place for opinionated banter.
  • rachel ermatinger
    #15 rachel ermatinger on 31 Oct 13
     
    In the article Bill Keller and Glenn Greenwald discussed their opinions about journalistic writing and debated if writing could be entirely unbiased. Personally, I believe that it is hard to entirely remove one's bias from writing because selection of quotes, sources, and even the formatting of the writing can leave clues about the writer's bias. It seems that at least some bias appears in every piece of writing, often in a very small amount that can only be detected by thoroughly looking. Even though I think that it is incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to remove all opinions from writing I do not agree with Glenn Greenwald's idea that we should admit our opinions to our readers prior to the article. If journalists were to tell their readers prior to the article what his/her opinion is then the readers may be influenced and see the article differently which would dramatically affect the whole purpose of journalistic writing, which is to provide the facts and allow the readers to draw their own conclusions and opinions. Overall, I believe that as journalistic writers we should at least attempt to remove our opinion from news stories as much as possible, because the writing is more effective when the readers are able to form their own opinions, especially when reporting on controversial topics like the NSA tracking and American torture on prisoners.
  • Caroline Frost
    #16 Caroline Frost on 31 Oct 13
     
    I think the conversation between Glenn and Bill are very Interesting and they both are very strong opinions. I agree with Bill Keller. In every article you read, the journalist who wrote the story had there own point of view on the subject. It's a little hard when your writing a story not to show bias, but depending upon what subject your writing about depends on how much you show bias. If your hearing someone's opinion on a subject you don't know much about, you might agree with that person. Not knowing enough facts, you side with them. Which is sometimes the problem with opinion pieces or showing too much bias. When your reading the article your only hearing there opinion, one side of the story. They only tell you the facts they want you to hear so that you side with them. I've personally read many news story where Ive seen bias, and that's the problem, if a news story has too much personal opinion, it's not a news story, it's an opinion piece. We the journalist can't just write articles saying "news" and state little facts from both sides and state our opinion. We have to state the facts and stick to what we are, journalist, people who distribute news. Now I'm not saying that we can't just never write opinion pieces, but I feel like most news story's now a days have more opinions and bias them ever before.
  • James Finn
    #17 James Finn on 31 Oct 13
     
    While Greenwald makes some interesting points concerning the objectivity of conventional news writing, I feel that Keller's argument is more sound overall. I found myself agreeing with much of what Keller had to say; I think that it is fully possible as a news writer to remove one's own opinions and ideals from a piece of news writing. Greenwald says that this is impossible, that every news story contains at least a shred of opinion (he argues that simply choosing to write a story shows bias on the part of the news organization.) He goes further, saying that it is the duty of every journalist to express his or her opinion, because the truth is disguised if objectivity is the goal. Personally, I believe that the only duty of any news organization is to provide readers with concise, objective fact. I think that readers should be given an opportunity to decide things for themselves. Now, it is not an easy thing to write a completely objective news piece, even if all personal agendas are removed from a story. But a news story that is written with an attempt made at being free of bias will ultimately be much more beneficial to a reader than an opinionated news piece, because it will prompt readers to think for themselves and formulate their own opinions. The following quote of Keller's made a distinct impression on me: "I don't think of it as reporters pretending they have no opinions. I think of it as reporters, as an occupational discipline, suspending their opinions and letting the evidence speak for itself." When a reporter writes an objective news piece, he or she is not writing while pretending to lack opinion. Reporters are allowed to have their own opinions, just like every other human being. But, when writing a news story, it is the duty of every journalist to make as much of an effort as possible to remove his or her opinion from the piece, so that all readers will be given the opportunity to come to their own conclusions.
  • anonymous
    #18 anonymous on 31 Oct 13
     
    Before reading the article I was pretty firm in my viewpoint (that impartial journalism was the 'better' way) but Greenwald made very convincing points. I think ultimately I still agree with Keller's viewpoint, that impartiality is something to strive for. This quote in summed up my feelings.

    "I believe that impartiality is a worthwhile aspiration in journalism, even if it is not perfectly achieved. I believe that in most cases it gets you closer to the truth, because it imposes a discipline of testing all assumptions, very much including your own."

    I do think that there may need to be an acknowledgment of bias, Greenwald mentioned that he didn't know what John Burns' viewpoints on the attacks on Iraq were and "..as a reader, I really wish I would have known his hidden views at the time he was reporting on the war so that I could have taken them into account."

    And I think that that idea does have some merit, and even if you try and hide your bias to the best of your abilities and editor's abilities etc there may be things that slip out. And if the readers are informed about what your bias is they can take it into account. However that's easier said than done.

    Also, very opinionated writing it may only be appreciated/read by people with the same opinions. Even if the story is amazing people may dismiss it because of your blatant opinions and may not read the story. Also, people with minority opinions may not have access to news that reflects their opinions (in official publications) and may be put off by/not want to read people telling them that they're wrong. Also, like Keller said, if you publicly state your opinion you're likely to try and defend it to safe face, etc.
  • Ganga Baird
    #19 Ganga Baird on 31 Oct 13
     
    Both of these writers provided many substantial points and an almost overwhelming amount of evidence proving said points, and both of them followed the points to subsequent conclusions. Keller is saying that although we may be kidding ourselves with complete impartiality, it is vital to at least approach it. This is because opinions and ideologies can resonate with people who have the same or similar viewpoints. One could really write anything with enough spin on it and it would be accepted by the people who agree with you. When this happens, it is easy to stray into the realm of low content journalism that is easy to agree with but doesn't really fulfill the journalistic purpose. Greenwald, to me, seems like a man caught up in his own rhetoric - essentially a glorified demagogue. His message does hold some merit however. There are many uses to this type of journalism as it can be very powerful because of its ability to resonate. BUT, a time and a place exists for everything to do the most good in the world. And that viewpoint was expressed best in Keller's letters, so I firmly side with him.
  • peter wynn
    #20 peter wynn on 31 Oct 13
     
    This article was filled with very valid points from both sides, but at the end of the day I have to agree with Keller. Impartial journalism is and has been the standard for accurate journalism in our country. Impartial journalism gives less leeway to include purely the authors preference of details and evidence, and more successfully captures the event as a whole, not a perspective on it. When the facts are presented, it is up to the reader to apply their own opinion. That being said, I found many of Greenwalds criticisms of journalism, the New York Times in particular, very interesting. Greenwald claimed that papers like the N.Y.T. support the elite classes and are looking to protect Washington. If, as Greenwald says, the N.Y.T. really did hold back a year to report the N.S.A. scandal and reported George W. Bush's false claim of weapons in Iraq, Greenwald has a point. However, at the end of the day the type of opinionated reporting that Greenwald supports is what endures the most criticism today.
  • Camille Morgan
    #21 Camille Morgan on 31 Oct 13
     
    This article content was extremely valid, and contained a solid argument for both sides. In my opinion, good, concrete journalism is about hitting that middle ground. I don't want to read any piece of news, no matter how important, if it sounds like its been written by a robot. As mentioned in the article, journalists are not machines, but living, breathing, and perceiving human beings. I feel that its vital that journalism at least be partial enough to include not only the neccessary details, but also the nature and tone of those details without being too cautious of bias. That said, its all about balance. In the article, it is mentioned that the risk of discarding impartiality is that it is only natural to want to defend one's opinion, which can lead to a writer trimming away certain facts and structuring an article to his or her own advantage. I think the key is to allow and assure your reader that you, the writer, are in fact a human with real thoughts and feelings, but still take enough steps back in your writing in order to inform your audience of the true facts so they can decide and make up their minds on the issue for themselves.
  • Sophie Boczek
    #22 Sophie Boczek on 02 Nov 13
     
    After reading the article, I am undecided on which writer to side with. On one hand, I believe that journalists should attempt to keep their writing impartial. As Bill Keller says, in news articles reporters suspend their opinions and let the evidence speak for itself. I agree with him, but is this a realistic point of view? One way or another, bias will be exposed in news writing, because journalists are actually living, breathing creatures with emotions and opinions. It is natural to want to inform the public about your individual ideas, but as a journalist, your goal is to do the complete opposite. Glenn Greenwald says that humans all process the world through subjective prisms, but we don't all look through the same subjective prisms. We (as people, as public, as readers) want the facts (or 'facts') so we can process it through our individual 'subjective prisms.'
    On the other hand, it is nearly impossible to have opinion-free news. Even when a newspaper chooses what to report on, they are illustrating their bias. Word choice is subjective, and sources are subjective. The best we can do, as journalists, is to try our best to keep opinion out of our articles.
  • Kyle Kearney
    #23 Kyle Kearney on 05 Nov 13
     
    This article makes me question a lot of things in the journalism world, and think about it more deeply. Is it possible for an article to have absolutely no opinion? And would I even want to read something like that? Something with no opinion is completely bland, because the word choice that you have is so narrow that what you are left with is something emotionless. Of course it is impossible to make something void of opinion because even the choice of subject is opinion-based. I don't think small amounts of opinion showing through in a piece is wrong, as long as the opinion isn't too strong and ends up altering the purpose of the piece. Humans are opinioned creatures, and we are entitled to our opinion, and to strive for something without any of that seems kind of sad, and almost a disservice to the reader. As long as the journalist is balanced in their opinion, and can see the sides of other perspectives as well, I don't think that it is a huge issue for news to be a tiny bit opinionated.
  • Joe Russell
    #24 Joe Russell on 05 Nov 13
     
    I thought the article was very interesting and made me think about my opinion on bias in journalism. It brought up many valid points on each side, but in the end I found myself leaning towards bias in reporting. While I do not think that articles should be only opinion, I think it is fine to include one's opinion and views. I really liked the quote from Greenwald in defense of writing with opinion. "Hiding one's views gives a reporter more latitude to manipulate their reporting because the reader is unaware of those hidden views and thus unable to take them into account." This made me rethink what I originally viewed as the correct way to be a journalist. Bias, if regulated and controlled, can add so much more to a story. It can make readers have a different mindset about the story or topic, and I think that is an important thing when informing people of important events or topics.
  • Hannah Chorley
    #25 Hannah Chorley on 05 Nov 13
     
    I enjoyed reading this exchange between Keller and Greenwald, and the article contained strong and persuasive arguments for both sides. I agree with parts of both Keller and Greenwald's arguments. Keller writes about the necessity of having impartial journalism that delivers concise, objective facts to it's audience. I agree that it is crucial to be given the facts without bias, so you are able to form your own opinion on the matter at hand. Journalists should feel as if it is their duty to provide the reader with an article that contains as little subjectivity as possible. I agree with Greenwald's belief that every journalist and reporter is biased; they are human beings, consciously and subconsciously influenced by their surroundings. But that does not mean the journalist has to carry this bias into his writing. It is possible, through impartial word choice and balanced evidence, to write an un-baised news article. Greenwald makes an argument that un-biased journalism is boring and the reader's want emotion and connection with the author. Personally, it usually isn't word choice that draws me into a news story; it's the news topic itself. No matter how hard a journalist tries to make a county fair sound exciting, by throwing in as much bias as possible with words such as "spectacular" and "life changing", I will be much more likely to read an entire article on a presidential scandal. When it comes down to it, I think the differences in their opinion stem from the question: What makes a good piece of journalism? For Greenwald, it seems that good journalism is about the dollar signs. Good journalism for Greenwald is: How can we make this as interesting and exciting as possible to get a bigger audience? On the other hand, Keller seems to believe that good journalism is about delivering the facts, and just the facts. Because of that, I sided more towards Keller's opinion.
  • emily long
    #26 emily long on 05 Nov 13
     
    Perhaps opinion does have a place in the news. Disguising opinion as fact is worse than blatant opinionated statements. Without the impartiality rules that surround journalism writers would have the freedom to take a side, to write freely without constantly checking over their shoulder or fretting that perhaps their opinion is too exposed in the article. All writing comes from the perspective of the writer. It is ridiculous to think that the opinion of the writer can be stifled; it can be limited by adhering to the strict rules of journalism. But I would rather have the opinion of the writer be up front so that I can decide if I agree with their premise or not. It would require more effort from the reader, to determine their own opinion separate from the authors. However this system would require the reader to visit multiple sources with different viewpoints. It is more challenging for the reader but it would promote the questioning of our own opinions and ideas.
  • sammy herdman
    #27 sammy herdman on 07 Nov 13
     
    It's pretty clear to me that journalism should remain as impartial as possible, that's why in the past there has always been an opinions section- separate from the news. But as Mr. Lavezzo would point out, basing an argument on how things have been in the past is a logical fallacy. However, the evidence to back up this view is as populous as always. The main reason is because the news is to inform readers. It's important that everyone knows whats going on in the world, and even more important that they are able to form their own opinion on whats happening. As Mr. Steinhart pointed out earlier this year, people who only watch fox news or msnbc because the biases on those networks reflect their own, get stuck in a loop. They aren't giving themselves opportunities to branch out and consider new ideas. I think that if politicians/everyone only watched unbiased news reports, or read unbiased papers, they wouldn't be stuck in the rigid categories of politics. The fact that Greenwald wants to share more opinions, in areas of journalism that should remain open to interpretation, would only reinforce these problems that are prevalent in politics, and other controversial topics- people would get stuck in their biases.
  • Reis Dorit
    #28 Reis Dorit on 08 Nov 13
     
    This article brought insight into my opinion towards the subject. After hearing both sides I was able to conclude that I think writing should have a balance, but be as impartial as possible. There seems to to much bias present in current media to the point that it has gotten out of hand. News is slowly becoming an editorial, just no one knows it yet. I think that my view on this falls somewhere in the middle, but more towards Greenwalds ideas. Some of what Greenwald opinions are to extreme for what I think. According to him, the act of publishing any type of news in mainstream media regardless of if it's video, print, or online creates a bias on it's own. I agree with this in a sense that we are learning different information that would be reported on in the Eastern Hemisphere. An example would be the Syria conflict. Just by picking to choose this topic, you have already created a bias. It is impossible to have no bias in any type of writing. Picking an idea creates bias, before you even write the article. What we can do now in reporting, is to clearly separate editorial and news. Yes, there will be less of an entertainment value, but it is a journalists duty to provide opinion free pieces.
  • padenm
    #29 padenm on 08 Nov 13
     
    I think this article was very intriguing as both sides had several valid points. In the article, Keller and Greenwald had highly opposing thoughts on the impartialism of journalism, and whether or not news should be biased. I agree with many ideas from both Kelller and Greenwald, and think they could both have some accuracy. Keller thinks that all news should be completely unbiased, which I don't agree with, as I think that some bias can sometimes provide a different point of view and keep the reader interested. However, Keller states that facts should always be used and always be correct, which I do agree with, I don't think facts should ever be manipulated to fit the reporters bias. Greenwald thinks that all news contains bias, and that bias is necessary for entertainment. While I somewhat agree with this, I think there are times when bias should be avoided. In general, as long as the facts are correct and not bended and the sources stay equal and fair, I think its okay for a small amount of the reporters bias to show, as a form of entertainment and as a way to keep readers/watchers interested.
  • Anthony Mazzini
    #30 Anthony Mazzini on 09 Nov 13
     
    The Keller and Greenwald debate generated many thought provoking ideas. Both Keller and Greenwald presented strong arguments as to whether journalism should only be impartial or not. While I agree with Keller that news containing opinion is more interesting, I believe Greenwald's point that news should not influence the reader is much more important. Biased news takes away a persons liberty to develop their own opinion. Readers often favor their favorite writers and news anchors whose opinions may sometimes contain flaws. Journalists who are biased will often shy away from the facts on both sides in attempt to fortify their opinion. Instead of producing impartial news, journalists today are presenting unhelpful information. As a Journalists I think it's important that we produce news that's is objective with relevant facts that do not favor one side or the other. This allows readers to not only to become aware of society's current news, but also to formulate their own opinion. The freedom of developing your own opinion may help settle both national and international disputes.
  • Daniel zwiebach
    #31 Daniel zwiebach on 14 Nov 13
     
    I apologize that this is so late, I missed a few days last week and the day that it was assigned.

    This debate was filled with logical and intriguing ideas from both sides, but after reading this article and thinking clearly I have to agree with Keller. Impartial journalism has been the most used and the most highly regarded form of journalism in our country to date. Impartial journalism gives the author freedom to use his own evidence, analysis, details, etc. Impartial journalism makes the reader use their mind to come up with their own opinion after the author brings up his evidence. Greenwald claimed that papers like the New York Times support higher classes and are looking to protect the government. Overall I thought most of Greenwalds criticisms of journalism were true and ver well put. However in my opinion the journalism that Greenwald supported was not as strong as Impartial journalism.
  • Ben Olizar
    #32 Ben Olizar on 21 Nov 13
     
    I can see both of the points these people are trying to make. I mostly agree with Keller but Greenwald has some interesting points as well. I do think that it still is possible to be impartial in journalism but the higher up the corporate ladder you get the more biased you will get because you want to give what your audience wants. The more the audience the more people want to see what they like. Fox understood this and created a republican news program. MS NBC did the same only with democrats. Humans become power hungry the more power they have a sort of snowball effect. I still do side with Keller though.
  • Isaac Cohen
    #33 Isaac Cohen on 20 Dec 13
     
    I land somewhere in the middle of this argument. I believe that impartiality should remain a focus of good news writing but that news also has a lot that it could learn from the opinion and column styles. Glenn Greenwald states "the only real metric of journalism that should matter is accuracy and reliability." If being open with the reader about the author's biases provides a greater understanding of the topic then it should be encouraged. This is why I think that an objective column that practices good journalism is intensely powerful in a way that news writing is not. If the columnist can lift the veil between themselves and the reader and display their own struggle for impartiality the reader gains a far better understanding of the issue than if the author either presented their personal opinion or a so called objective opinion. I believe that presenting the struggle for impartiality can teach the reader a lot more about the subject than either opinion or impartiality can possibly do on their own. For example if I were to write an article on the economic affects of immigration I could write an extremely biased article (which would not appear to dissimilar from other so called reliable reporting) that aligns with all the standard liberal position on immigration, which would only be read by other liberals and which would fail in its principle task to inform my audience on the issue because they would be receiving only one side of a highly partisan topic. If instead I wrote an article which confessed my own biases and struggle to come to terms with economic facts that do not support my position. It is entertaining for me to imagine an newspaper which draws equal numbers writers from all sides of political issues so that the goal of impartiality in that kind of environment would become eye opening for both the journalists and the readers instead of being "neutering" as Greenwald says.

To Top

Start a New Topic » « Back to the Tam News Lab group