It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
In 1972, National Review magazine published a content analysis titled “Is it true what they say about the New York Times?”
The analysis and conclusion reached in that study was an unwelcome shock to many of the conservative magazine’s subscribers, as it held that the Times was editorially balanced in its news pages, in contrast to its editorial pages. NR founder William F. Buckley Jr. took a lot of heat from his supporters, as did the co-authors of the study. Not surprisingly, NYT Executive Editor Abe Rosenthal loved it and bought hundreds of copies of the issue.
Five decades later, in early January this year, another study was published that comes to a very different conclusion about the objectivity of the legacy media, particularly the New York Times. The subject of this inquiry was news coverage of “Russiagate.”
This examination, undertaken by Jeff Gerth, a decorated investigative journalist formerly with the Times, was published by Columbia Journalism Review. It’s a tour de force! Having taken a year and a half to research and write, and at a length of 24,000 words in four installments, Gerth utterly destroys whatever is left of the lie that Trump was in league with the Russians, and of the extraordinary lengths the media went to spread that smear.
But that is nothing compared to the fact that the news organization that is front and center in Gerth’s piece is the New York Times. The Times, and to a lesser extent the Washington Post, is to U.S. journalism what magnetic north is to compasses – the needle always points in their direction.
No narrative did more to shape Trump’s relations with the press than Russiagate. The story, which included the Steele dossier and the Mueller report among other totemic moments, resulted in Pulitzer Prizes as well as embarrassing retractions and damaged careers. For Trump, the press’s pursuit of the Russia story convinced him that any sort of normal relationship with the press was impossible.
And given that neither the Washington Post nor the Times have publicly addressed the gaping hole Gerth’s reporting has torn in their credibility – and the muted reaction of most of the rest of the corporate media to Gerth’s exposé, we seem to have entered a new era. In today’s brave new journalism world, objectivity and even truth have been abandoned in favor of a journalism that simply reflects whatever political or ideological narrative is prevalent at the time.
originally posted by: monkeyluv
www.cjr.org...
Arizona State University’s Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication recently released a survey of some 75 journalists titled “Beyond Objectivity.” Many of them argued that objectivity should no longer be the standard in news reporting.
“I never understood what ‘objectivity’ meant,” Prof. Leonard Downie Jr., a co-author of the report and a former executive editor of the Washington Post, wrote in a Post op-ed. “My goals for our journalism were instead accuracy, fairness, nonpartisanship, accountability and the pursuit of truth.” Much of the public would regard that as far more objective than what they read, hear and view now.
The source of this article is an editorial, which is to say "opinion."
originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: Maxmars
Have you ever tried to be objective? It's almost impossible.
You always bring your own bias built on other stories you know, preferences etc. And you can't write 'engaging content' without being passionate about a subject.
Objectivity is basically an ideal impossible to ever be fully realised. Because you're expecting those 'elite students' as you say to achieve something impossible you're always going to end up disappointed.
Reaffirming your own bias that they do so intentionally.
Report:
On Feb 18 2023, Maxmars wrote a thread about a NYT opinion piece on objectivity in journalism.
Opinion: There's no objective reporting in the media, Maxmars said citing a NYT article.
As adult I should have enough media literacy to spot the report in an opinion, or the absence of it and vice versa.
Everything else, like projecting my responsibilty to be literate on the media is anti free speech, anti capitalism or anti free market and demanding a nanny state to protect me from those freedoms.
Have you ever tried to be objective? It's almost impossible.
You always bring your own bias built on other stories you know, preferences etc. And you can't write 'engaging content' without being passionate about a subject.
Objectivity is basically an ideal impossible to ever be fully realised. Because you're expecting those 'elite students' as you say to achieve something impossible you're always going to end up disappointed.
Reaffirming your own bias that they do so intentionally.
originally posted by: charlyv
A conflict that has no winning solution.
You want to believe people you trust.
Sometimes you get correct information.
Other times, you are lied to.
Belief itself, is the problem, as your intuition is the most valuable.
originally posted by: monkeyluv
www.cjr.org...
The press versus the president, part one
By Jeff Gerth