"Impartial" journalism: Are we kidding ourselves? (1st and 2nd HW, 10.29) - 81 views
-
#33 Isaac Cohen on 20 Dec 13I 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.