Comments on: It’s time to admit that journalists are human beings

By: swattz101

swattz101 — Mon, 07 Nov 2011 21:02:42 +0000

I think the idea here is that “journalits” should be objective in professional pieces, but be allowed to have an opinion in social media when NOT representing the media outlet they work for. __I don’t see a major problem with this. Let them have twitter/facebook/Google+, as long as their profile makes it clear this is their opinion and not the opinion of the company they work for, then let them opine away. After that, the reader can objectivly decide if the reporter/writer is biased in their professional writings.

By: Aggrobot

Aggrobot — Sat, 29 Oct 2011 01:29:39 +0000

Seems to me that you may have overlooked one major portion of journalism with your blog post: business and financial journalism. The benefits or drawbacks to reporting on such topics while being anything but *completely* unbiased should be pretty clear. The word transparency is getting thrown around like it and unbiased mean the same thing. They don’t.
You may have been a 15 year journalist with a degree, but you need to go back to school. Despite your experience, you have absolutely failed to realize the responsiblity you have provide nothing but the facts, and let the readers decide. Fair, unbiased news containing only the facts is dying a rather slow death at the hands of “infotainment.” I find your statements that we should essentially welcome it very sad.

By: aggrobot

aggrobot — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 17:30:17 +0000

I’m a little stunned that you’re writing off the loss of journalistic integrity so easily.

By: John Hamer

John Hamer — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 15:35:33 +0000

It is clearly the “pretense of objectivity” that destroys credibility and trust in journalism. Jack Shafer is right that readers can see right through that. And David Weinberger is right that transparency is part of the answer. That why we started the “TAO of Journalism – Transparent, Accountable and Open” Pledge and Seal project. See http://taoofjournalism.org. It’s a voluntary honor system that anyone practicing “acts of journalism” can follow. Be Transparent about your biases, Accountable if you make mistakes, and Open to other points of view. Simple as that. Just TAO it!

By: Henry B

Henry B — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 14:40:35 +0000

Jimr: perhaps one reason you didn’t know the influence I have is because this is the first time I have posted here, using a guest pseudonym I have never used before. Odd that while posting on a web message board you wouldn’t think that one minor individual such as myself DOES have a modicum of influence (as you do too) due to the rise of various social media platforms and tools. It ain’t much influence but it’s something. Surely a reader of GigaOm would know that, right? Right?

Matthew: yeah, I guess I don’t really think GigaOM is a radical right wing masquerade but the poster’s comment truly deserved to be challenged but you soft balled it.

By: Mark

Mark — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 23:41:37 +0000

Amen, Eric. I know a bit about journalism myself. And I am appalled at journalists who as reporters apid to write a newstory persist in attempting to demonstrate their desire to be sociologists. Just give me the 5 Ws. Don’t try to convince me of the rightness of some identity politics view of the world or how sensitive you are. I am interested in news. Just the facts. Spare me the effort to convince me of the rightness of your worldview. As a reader I am frequently offended at what passes for journalism these days. Purported news columns morph into bad sociology masquerading as public policy advice. Now, more than ever, real journalists need to know how to do old school, straight forward newswriting. That’s what I’m interested in consuming. I can find all the opinion and sociology I want, if I want it, on the web. What I don’t need are “pretenders” giving me their pathetic writing pretending to be news. Objectivity is a goal. It is capable of being striven for and achieved. It has value. The attempt to suggest that objectivity is a myth is,a s Col. Sherman T. Potter of MASH fame would say, “horsehockey”. Journalists might like to rationalize flaunting themselves and their opinions. Spare me the self-flattery. I don’t give a damn about the opinions of a bunch of left wing writers who wish to play at being sociologists and force feed me their opinions dressed up as “news”. I also find it amusing that they expect to be able to do this sucking on the government tit. Organizations have the right to define themselves and their standards. If Matthew or Jack don’t like that, bully for them! Let them start their own orgaization and make their own rules. They might need to raise a little money and put their own asses on the line of economic risk, as well. Woo-hoo! Product differentiation and how to achieve it is the prerogative of the owner of the publication–be it print, web, broadcast or whatever. It ain’t the prerogative of the hired help. So, if Matthew and Jack want to tell those of us consumers of journalism what we must suffer in terms of journalistic ethics, they can kiss my ass or start their own organization and put their own asses at risk economically. In the meantime, if I want an orgaization to provide me news and do it while striving for objectivity in it’s news columns or product they are free to strive to do that. And I’m still interested in purchasing it. And I can ignore publications or products that try to induce me to buy into fascile bullshit like “transparency is the new objectivity.” What bunk!

By: Erik

Erik — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 22:45:38 +0000

While Mathew has laid out a nice argument here, I have to disagree. Objectivity in journalism is not a pretense, it’s an ideal. One we as journalists must strive to attain. Sure, many of us fall short, but what you propose is to admit defeat. If you had it your way, I would never trust anything I read ever again and become ever more polarized. The rules help us to be fair.

By: Mathew Ingram

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 19:11:34 +0000

Henry, I wasn’t agreeing with the political statements in David’s comment, I was agreeing with his comment about how people can see through the pretense of objectivity.

By: Jimr

Jimr — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 19:08:05 +0000

WOW, Henry B, I had no idea the influence you must have, I’m sure Mathew is shaking in his shoes.

By: Julie Westfall

Julie Westfall — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 17:16:35 +0000

To be clear, I can see why Norris might, especially personally, have an awkward and tricky time reporting on the election horserace day after day on the radio, a medium that doesn’t lend itself well to constant disclosures if she felt she needed to make them. But she has stated she’s only stepping down temporarily. The message — her loyalties matter now, but will cease to matter once the nation has elected someone — is problematic to me.