Ellington

So-called media objectivity is destroying our country, The New York Times' Paul Krugman is telling us on his blog. I've been warning about this he-said-she-said approach to journalism for years now: a faulty device that tries to split any side down the middle regardless of what the facts are. It is just the opposite of real "enterprise" or investigative reporting. I like to tell my students and staffers that it's actually opinion writing when you take a story and just quote two different opinions and call it objective. It's ludicrous. What matters, or should matter, is actual fact finding -- not just quoting people giving bad facts, which we see constantly in mainstream journalism. And, way too often, without bothering to factcheck (most daily papers don't; we do) or to correct faulty information said by one of the "sides" quotes. And it's a false division: the two sides are often decided by some fake political compass that divides people into left or right, Democrat or Republican, when most Americans reject that kind of binary categorization. Meantime, they allow their media to get away with it.

the cult that I see as reflecting a true moral failure is the cult of balance, of centrism.

Think about what's happening right now. We have a crisis in which the right is making insane demands, while the president and Democrats in Congress are bending over backward to be accommodating — offering plans that are all spending cuts and no taxes, plans that are far to the right of public opinion.

So what do most news reports say? They portray it as a situation in which both sides are equally partisan, equally intransigent — because news reports always do that. And we have influential pundits calling out for a new centrist party, a new centrist president, to get us away from the evils of partisanship.

The reality, of course, is that we already have a centrist president — actually a moderate conservative president. Once again, health reform — his only major change to government — was modeled on Republican plans, indeed plans coming from the Heritage Foundation. And everything else — including the wrongheaded emphasis on austerity in the face of high unemployment — is according to the conservative playbook.

What all this means is that there is no penalty for extremism; no way for most voters, who get their information on the fly rather than doing careful study of the issues, to understand what's really going on.

You have to ask, what would it take for these news organizations and pundits to actually break with the convention that both sides are equally at fault? This is the clearest, starkest situation one can imagine short of civil war. If this won't do it, nothing will.

Previous Comments

ID

164156

Comment

Is this objectivity or is it favoring the mean spirited, misguided and false protectors of the status quo who has set themselves up as ensurers that the country never veers too far from the old and too close to the new. Can we really believe that everyone is being objective? Is Fox news or like minded organization even pretending to be objective? I agree with with Krugman assessment of what is transpiring with regards to what is happening. I just don't know why Democrats play nice all the time. I do agree that Democrats are in a terrible fix because it appears there isn't any punishment for the wrongdoings of republicans. The majority doesn't seem to have any interest in punishing republicans no matter how terrible their activities are. Instead of punishing them at the polls people who are sick of them instead take on this new role as independents. Frankly, I understand why some people do this in that many of their family members are republicans and they are afraid to really switch allegiances. On the other hand, I can't fathom why's intelligent black person would be an independent or republican in light of the last several years of republican conduct. Self hatred is the only intelligent conclusion I can come to. As for objectivity I subscribed to the Keith Oberman and Ed Schultz style of thinking. As long as trash is trash I will call it that. Otherwise, soon nothing is left or right, good or bad, dirty or clean, moral or immoral, etc.. Instead of moving the fence post, I say kill that which is no good. Its not that hard to distinguish.

Author

Walt

Date

2011-07-28T16:55:18-06:00

ID

164159

Comment

Walt- In the Who Won the Debate thread you said "I am a independent" now you're saying "You can't fathom why an intelligent black person would be an independent." So what is it, are you an independent or are you not intelligent person?

Author

BubbaT

Date

2011-07-28T17:56:38-06:00

ID

164161

Comment

I can provide the link if needed.

Author

jbreland

Date

2011-07-29T10:18:40-06:00

ID

164167

Comment

Bubba if you will read Todd's column right below Donna's, you will see that I said I'm an independent who votes Democrat 100 percent of the time now that I know how awful the repugnant republican party is. Can you dig it. You can't thump me. I'm a hustler, player and genius.

Author

Walt

Date

2011-07-29T16:58:41-06:00

ID

164176

Comment

"you will see that I said I'm an independent who votes Democrat 100 percent of the time" Walt - you are too much fella! lol!!!

Author

Duan C.

Date

2011-08-01T12:12:28-06:00

ID

164231

Comment

I'm an Independent because at the end of the day for me, the person is more important than the party.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2011-08-03T08:40:10-06:00

ID

164233

Comment

I'm with you, Jeff. Political parties make people act like spoiled brats at times, and the fighting is holding our country hostage. I suggest that you check out independentvoting.org. I listen in on their conference calls sometimes.

Author

LatashaWillis

Date

2011-08-03T09:26:44-06:00