I was watching CNN coverage of the Israeli invasion of Gaza, which really drove home how useless the practiced objectivity of the media can be sometimes.
In one corner, we have the Israeli Ambassador, who feigns regret at civilian casualties while subtly propagandizing, reinforcing the need for invasion and its justness.
In the other corner, we have some crazy statement from a Hamas spokesperson about the end of Israel, or whatever he usually says.
In the middle, we have the anchor, careful not to step on anyone's toes, lest they lose access--or worse, the Ambassador refuses to come back on the program.
Perhaps cliche, perhaps apocryphal, but still a funny notion: no matter how popular or great an initiative may be, the journalist must find the one nut who objects, and puts in their opinion, to give it balance. (Was that in the last season of the Wire?)
Should the news just keep on presenting (or pretending to present) "both sides" of the story, to let us decide? Does this really remove bias? Consider: the presentation of the news and the inherent selection involved--i.e., what is considered news and what is not--which allows significant room for bias.
At what point does purported objectivity become self-defeating?
http://www.qwantz.com/archive/000470.html
ReplyDelete