It’s become a cliche nowadays to deny that objectivity is possible. “We’re all biased,” people say with a shrug. In a certain sense, that’s a truism. My response is: “what are you gonna do about it?”

True, no finite intelligence can bootstrap its way out of its own skin. That kind of absolute objectivity is metaphysically impossible for beings such as we. But it’s also a bit of red herring. You don’t need absolute objectivity in the sense I’ve just described in order to be fair-minded. All you need is to get at enough distance from your opinions to realize that other smart people don’t or may not hold them. This doesn’t mean that you have to pretend to disbelieve your opinions when you believe in them. It just means that from now on you’ve got to argue for them.

I suppose that when it comes to journalism—and here I would agree with Andy—the obligation is not to much to present AN argument as it is to present THE arguments: both, or all the relevant, sides.

I take it from his remarks that Chris Satullo agrees with this on the level of princple.

What Chris Satullo doesn’t do, though, is address the question of whether or not there is such a thing as “liberal media bias.”

It’s true, of course, that a lot of people who shout “bias, bias” don’t care about being fair, or don’t even know what it means to be fair, and are using the bias-charge as a club to beat down arguments they don’t want to hear. But is this sufficient to account for conservatives’ accusations of media bias? In other words: even granting that conservatives as a rule would be perfectly happy with media bias if it went in their direction, it wouldn’t follow that there is no such thing as “liberal media bias.”

So, the question is this: is there or isn’t there?

Now, it doesn’t seem to me sufficient to answer by saying that most print journalists are just good guys trying their best to avoid mistakes, which will happen nonetheless. The question, at least in my mind, has nothing to do with the motives of individuals, which are known only to God. No, the issue is this: what is the kind of education do journalists typically receive nowadays? What kind of worldview do they get introduced into in the main journalism schools?

To put it another way: journalists may not be part of the political or economic elite in the strict sense, but they are part of an educational-cultural elite, which, on the whole, is characterized by a certain worldview.

Let me repeat that I’m not pronouncing on individual motives. In fact, I’m not even picking on journalists. I mean, there is such a thing as soi-disant “enlightened opinion” that saturates the culture-forming institutions—so much so that, without an extra special effort to be fair-minded, we’ll just miss it entirely, and think that, if we’re not aware of consciously distorting the facts, we’ve satisfied the requirements of objectivity.

I’d be false to my own principles if I said that “enlightened opinion” is a destiny we can’t escape. All I’m saying is that it will be unless we can learn to get some distance from it. Self-criticism about worldview should be a sine qua non of journalistic and every other education. But such self-criticism requires much more than a couple of courses in media ethics (or whatever ethics goes with your profession).

Thanks for letting me rant, you all.

Adrian

1) This is the information age, deal with it. One way to do that is provide links to references, particularly in on-line versions. It certainly won’t hurt your industry if ya’ll got in the habit of reserving just one line below the byline for a url to a permanent address for subject article in the print version. That way, readers who want more can go to the online version and follow links hither and yonder, pro and con, left and right and every which way as pertains to your story. Going that extra mile will show your readers that ya’ll respect their intelligence by “allowing” them to dig deeper into the story ya’ll present. With little creativity & CSS, ya’ll can even demarcate the original print vs the enhanced on-line version.

2) Make it the Golden Rule to present at least 2 sides of any issue and make sure that ya’ll present the best point of view, as in arguing the case for both sides. Just as a master debater can effectively debate one POV and 10 minutes later, just as effectively argue the opposite. This in my mind is what true reporters do — effectively report both sides and let the reader decide. Do that and Joe Q. Public won’t have cause to blog about MSM bias, least of all against your personal work.

3) Thanks to RaTHergate and other “outed” examples of egregious bias, the ball is in your court to win back your honor and crediblity as the portal to the truth. Doing the 1st point provides a check & balance to ensure the quality of the 2nd point. Failure to do both ensures that you WILL be marginalized to the role of “story initiator” where the MSM introduces a story and the blogoshere, TYVM, will wrap up the rest of the reporting.

To repeat a military axiom, “Lead, follow or get the heck out of the way”.

Hmmm, reading your responses had me second guessing myself. Why, if I’m making every effort to not talk over one’s head, are my comments being misinterpreted?

So I took my two main comments to M$ Word, which informs me that I was averaging a 9th grade readability level. I had guessed it would be 8th grade, minus the typos and quotes. In conclusion, it would seem you’re misconstruing my, along with SCSIwuzzy & others, statements for kicks or you’re having problems with English as a 2nd language.

It’s amazing and raTHer funny to us how you manage to keep your tripe down without gagging. Adios.

That being said, you didn’t cite a specific article or webpage, and that’s where I took issue with you. It’s always best to get specific when quoting a group or an individual. In other words, while it’s a good thing to reveal *who* said what you’re quoting, it’s even better to reveal *where* and *when* they said it. That way, when someone is examining your argument, he/she can go back to the source and read it in context, to make sure that you’re fairly representing the person or group you’re quoting. It’s just good debate ettiquette.

So, don’t let it be said that I never offer constructive criticism.

As for Fox, what about the staff and reporters at Fox. you like going off on O’Rieley, a commentator/pundit, but what about the news folks?
Now you’ve asked people here to prove that CBS and other MSM are blatantly biased, yet you accuse Fox of the same thing, and with no evidence, either. Could you cite something? And not something from a pundit, but an anchor, newscaster or reporter?
Then we can compare it the the 60 Minutes memo debacle, and the latest bit at CBS, the draft scare report from Tuesday night

As for CNN, I am saying that they aren’t as biased to the left as say, CBS news.
CNN and FNC must live or die by their ratings and advertiser dollars, while the big 3 broadcast networks allow their national news arms to exist on subsidy. Rather, Brokaw etc don’t pull in the numbers to warrant their budgets and paychecks, but the prestige that goes with the news branches have kept them going for years. What this means is, the all news cable networks have to remain appealing to as broad an audience as possible, or lose it to the competition. If a show/newscast/host can’t do that, they get canned, since this is the networks sole means of income.
CBS, for example, has CSI in all of it’s flavors, Survivor and sports to keep their books out of the red.

I mentioned MRC because I see them as good counterpoint to FAIR. Both do point out the smaller flaws of the opposing view, and both begrudgingly hilight the excesses of their own camp. When both groups agree on something, then it is truly time to take notice
Your reaction and assumptions about my views (and Andy’s) were, as usual, fun to read.

This is what i was saying, when someone made a reference to liberals supposedly wanting to censor things.
And pointed out that your source is far from objective.

‘And pointed out that your source is far from objective.’

Explain. Its based on guests from ‘reliable sources,’ their political viewpoint, and how many times they have appeared on the show. Its hardly an opinion piece. It uses facts to carve out whos political viewpoint is getting the most coverage.

‘As for Fox… balanced can also mean they have a balanced staff, or that they present more than one side of the issue.’

They fail to do this however. Liberals are invited on shows like the ‘O’Reilly factor so he can insult them, ignore them, tell them to shut up or simply just cut their mic off when hes losing a debate. Lets not forget the whole Jeremy Glick fiasco. Its not a level playing field whatsoever. Fox is NOT ‘fair and balanced.’ At least non of the other news channels have the audacity to claim this, and recite it as a virtual mantra.

‘From what I’ve seen, there are far more liberals on FNC than there are conservatives on CNN or the big broadcast networks’

So you are backing up my point that CNN ISNT liberal biased?

‘Omar, I wouldn’t know where to begin to attack your sources, since *you won’t reveal who they are*!’

The source is FAIR. Im not sure on your reading skills, but it was indicated clearly at the time.

‘And when it was pointed out that all of the members of FAIR are lefty liberals,’

This isnt really the case. Noam Chomsky supports FAIR. So what? Your point is pretty shaky here. Im sure the nice folks at the Fox network would support it, if it backed their blatantly biased reporting. FAIR is a group pushing for accuracy in media and reporting. They spare no critisisms towards liberals, as i said. FAIR has attacked Dan Rather, if you arnt aware. I dont know what you expect me to provide, but it likes you will dismiss it whatever it is.

‘What is your opinion on Media Research Center?’

What are your opinions on it? Surely if you disagree with FAIR for being supposedly slanted, you shouldnt be a fan of this? Since it openly admits to being Conservative, it isnt going to like any kind of remotely ‘liberal’ reporting, even if its totally factual. The thing about the MRC, it focuses almost entirely on CBS, and totally ignores Bush megaphoning across major news networks. I havnt seen many scientific studies, in regards to MRC.

‘I see you have the nerve to parrot sKerry talking points that patronize either military as the gospel truth, let alone others in the coalition.’

Im not patronising anybody.

‘War strategy is subjective and one doesn’t make general unless one is a pro OR benefitted from AA (Karpinski). ‘

Ah. You’ve been caught out here. You are running back on what you were saying earlier, when i quite fairly pointed out Bush ignored a lot of military advice when undertaking this war. The point is, he DIDNT leave it the pros, not in the slightest. Id link to a Guardian article FULL on soundbites from prominent military men, if i could. Seeing you implode is like being witness to a car wreck….its horrible but you just CANT look away.

Go back and read what I said.

We work so closely, with the Brits, that we study each other’s tactics, conduct joint training & operations and critically examine the sucesses & failures to further refine our game plan. I see you have the nerve to parrot sKerry talking points that patronize either military as the gospel truth, let alone others in the coalition.

“More irony, it seems to be endless. Bush and cabinet ignored MANY prominent generals, both retired and in service when taking the decision to invade Iraq. Talk about ‘leaving it to the pros.”

War strategy is subjective and one doesn’t make general unless one is a pro OR benefitted from AA (Karpinski). When the opinions are diametrically opposed, then the CINC has to decide which side has presented the better case and go with it. It is also implicitly understood that when your side loses the lead, you either suck it up and follow 110%, or get the hell out of the way.

Even if Bush went with the Shinseki group, then sKerry would still repeat the charges of ineptitude by pointing out that Bush ignored the Franks group.

So Colin didn’t agree with the Franks group. So what! He’s not the CINC, nor SecDef and tho he once was top general, he’s too many years removed from the latest and greatest in military doctrine. There also were “many” prominent generals that thot Collin was wrong in the 1st Gulf War.

Bottomline, as Colin is fond of saying, they all serve at the pleasure of POTUS. And if these upper echelons end up serving under sKerry; most will do as Demond Hunter does, and do so faithfully. If for no other reason than to mitigate as much as possible the ineptness of a scary CINC, rather than cut and run from their troops.

As for the rest of your moonbat tripe, it’s been out in the sun so long, it’s long past rank.

“Thats just weak, and transparent.”
Funny, I was thinking the same thing about all of your arguments. Go figure.

Neither is Tipper Gore, Noam Chomsky, or Abbie Hoffman, using your definition.

The thing is, Fox declares itself to be fair and balanced – suggesting that its various employees are all objective, and totally unbiased.

‘Commentators and pundits are not journalists, therefore their opinions are not required to be objective. Rather, Billmon & Arnett are “journalists”. O’Reilly, Limbaugh & Franken are not journalists.’