« There is a fundamental problem with the BBC and all public broadcasting enterprises. They are magnets for anti- traditionalist, leftist staffers who fondle their ideals over the air, knowing they are in a business far removed from the disgusting commercialism of their competitors. Their revenue is carved directly out of the public's hide. »
--Tampa Tribune: The BBC in The Dock
The core thesis of this article is that public funding shouldn't support Left wing opinions. This old saw of an argument is frequently used against the PBS in the US and against funding public art. It's amazing how intolerant some people are of dissent. Recall that there have been many nations who carefully reviewed and approved each piece of public art to ensure none of it offended.
Nazi Germany was one such country, as was the Soviet Union.
It's funny how the media clings to the idea of objectivity when no one can agree on what objective reporting is. As Jon Steward recently pointed out in his interview with Bill Moyers, editors make subjective decisions about the order of new stories. Those that are deemed "important" are presented first. Yet even a casual review of any news outlet will should that importance is frequently defined as that outlet's self-interest rather than an obligation to some "public trust." This article here is clearly labelled an editorial written by a "conservative" who task the BBC to task for criticising Blair during the 2003 Iraq war. It's wonderful to read this article as it portrays opposition to an administration's policy as a "menace" and a "propaganda outlet for peaceniks". It's jolting to see Cold War rhetoric applied to any news paper let alone the BBC.
This is a funny time to be alive on Earth. With many countries of the West becoming uncomfortable Right wing, one has to wonder where we are heading a such a fast pace? Why is it so wrong to question is the destination is worth the trip?
The core thesis of this article is that public funding shouldn't support Left wing opinions. This old saw of an argument is frequently used against the PBS in the US and against funding public art. It's amazing how intolerant some people are of dissent.
Re:Objectivity
jjohn on 2003-08-06T00:03:52
Please continue to argue with yourself, Pudge. You're doing a bang up job!
I want the government to foster intelligent discourse. I'm not a laywer, I have no idea what the Consitution means legally (I understand the words, but I don't understand law). I won't hold the Consitution in higher regard than Thomas "Every generation needs a revolution" Jefferson. I do know what sort of society I want to live in and the sort of activities I want my government sponsoring (I think my blog gives some idea what programs I support).
I don't think objectivity in the professional media is possible and perhaps the pursuit of this illusion is worse than admitting it doesn't exist. Given that, I expect reasonable reporting, that is reporting facts that have been checked with some deligence. I'd rather listen to a reasoned right wing news report than a a fatuous or fictional report from left wing source. The Daily Show is entertaining, but even I don't mistake that for news, just because it makes me feel good (are you listening Fox News watchers?).
On a tangent, the correlation between crime and punishment is tenuous. If we put everyone in prison, I'm sure we'd all be safer. If the economy is booming, maybe crimes of desperation drop. This is far beyond my area of competence to debate, but I'm not yet ready to accept the "more prisons == safer society."
Re:Objectivity
pudge on 2003-08-06T00:28:22
I want the government to foster intelligent discourse.
I want no such thing. That requires my money, and if it is federally funded, it requires violating the Constitution.
I don't think objectivity in the professional media is possible and perhaps the pursuit of this illusion is worse than admitting it doesn't exist.
It's necessary, if you want to inform people rather than attempt to sway them. If you think Fox News is right about how news should be reported -- starting from a philosophy and shoehorning the news to fit it -- then yeah, objectivity has no place in the news media. I think that's the wrong direction.
Given that, I expect reasonable reporting, that is reporting facts that have been checked with some deligence.
But as you pointed out, the choosing of facts is highly subjective. The real motto of journalism is not "objectivity," which may blur the issue: it is "fair, complete, and accurate." You focus there on accuracy, which is important; but "fair," and to a lesser degree "complete," is where "objectivity" comes in.
You can't be entirely objective, but you can make a conscious effort to be fair and complete and accurate. To call someone "anti-abortion" and someone else "pro-choice," when you know the former person would prefer to be called "pro-life," is not being fair. Saying 12 people were killed last year because of a new seat belt design, but neglecting to say how many people were potentially saved, is not being fair.
It seems to me the hand-wringing you recalled from TDS over "objectivity" is sorta like how some people talk about "evolution": we evolved from children into adults! So of COURSE there is evolution! But that narrow focus on the definition of the word misses the point of its meaning in the context.
Note also that of the top TV journalists, you would be hard-pressed to come to any conclusions about their political affiliations. They do their best to be fair to all points of view, to be objective. Objectivity exists, and it is a good thing. Not pure objectivity, as we are subjective beings, who can only possibly see things through our whatever-colored glasses. But the ability to see things through different glasses is a valuable one, if you wish to inform people, rather than get them to agree with you.
On a tangent, the correlation between crime and punishment is tenuous.
I was not making the claim that increased prison population caused the decrease in crime. I was making the claim that the NYT author didn't even consider that possibility.
