I think this is an interesting topic for many reasons. I am no expert in that but I tried to read some literature on it.
There is the underlying question does truth exist? Are there objectively true facts? My answer is yes. I reject postmodernism inter alia because it questions the existence of an objective truth which can be found out. I wanted to read more about postmodernism and the concept of truth but I had no time for that. I rather focussed instead on the journalism question.
I think many here have expressed their antipathy for journalism due to alleged fake news, biased reporting etc. I read the newspaper quite often. I also follow some other media outlets. And concerning the diversity of the German-speaking press I am glad about the media industry. Probably it has some sort of bias in favor of the left. On the other hand the yellow press is often rather in favor of conservatives but more generally very populistic. I am glad we have such a diverse media landscape compared to other countries. There are also some outlets which I follow from other countries like the US. I am glad the yellow press is in my country not as strong as for example in the UK or Austria. I think yellow press can be very toxic.
I think the TV broadcast channels in the US suck ass. The newpapers seem to be better comparatively to the channels. Many US outlets are dependent on powerful lobby groups, interests of the rich and there is a concentration of companies which own the outlets This is also the case in my country. I think in my country especially smaller or regional outlets struggle. For the US market I have watched some analysis of Noam Chomsky. But I am no expert.
From the US I like some independent media outlets which are founded by a grass-root support. But there are also without a doubt some insane people in independent media.
Now I come closer to the core of this thread. I have read this inter alia in a David Foster Wallace story about journalism. Many US outlets in the past (I think the data were from 2005) had the goal of objectivity. They did not want to become partisan hacks. Though I think many became exactly that. They changed their strategy. This attempt of objectivity was kind of unique for the US. Outlets in Europe were always more partisan.
There comes the question. Should journalists try to be neutral and objective? Is this even possible? Or should they rather try to be transparent about their own biases? I think traditional mainstream media and independent media often give different answers to that. Personally I try consume outlets of both worlds. Both approaches have advantages and disadvantages.
I see a problem with the neutrality approach. One should call lies lies and not try to please both sides just because one wants to be perceived as allegedly objective. There are some many characterists of media outlets which destroy the illiusion of being perfectly objective. Though maybe there are nuances and it cannot be fully seen as a black-white scheme.
CNN recently changed their strategy. They want to be seen as non-partisan now. They try to more balanced for both sides. Sorry CNN your old approach sucked ass and you still suck.
Do you think you would like journalism more if they tried the objectivity approach more again? Or should they be fully transparent about their preferences of ideologies?
There is the underlying question does truth exist? Are there objectively true facts? My answer is yes. I reject postmodernism inter alia because it questions the existence of an objective truth which can be found out. I wanted to read more about postmodernism and the concept of truth but I had no time for that. I rather focussed instead on the journalism question.
I think many here have expressed their antipathy for journalism due to alleged fake news, biased reporting etc. I read the newspaper quite often. I also follow some other media outlets. And concerning the diversity of the German-speaking press I am glad about the media industry. Probably it has some sort of bias in favor of the left. On the other hand the yellow press is often rather in favor of conservatives but more generally very populistic. I am glad we have such a diverse media landscape compared to other countries. There are also some outlets which I follow from other countries like the US. I am glad the yellow press is in my country not as strong as for example in the UK or Austria. I think yellow press can be very toxic.
I think the TV broadcast channels in the US suck ass. The newpapers seem to be better comparatively to the channels. Many US outlets are dependent on powerful lobby groups, interests of the rich and there is a concentration of companies which own the outlets This is also the case in my country. I think in my country especially smaller or regional outlets struggle. For the US market I have watched some analysis of Noam Chomsky. But I am no expert.
From the US I like some independent media outlets which are founded by a grass-root support. But there are also without a doubt some insane people in independent media.
Now I come closer to the core of this thread. I have read this inter alia in a David Foster Wallace story about journalism. Many US outlets in the past (I think the data were from 2005) had the goal of objectivity. They did not want to become partisan hacks. Though I think many became exactly that. They changed their strategy. This attempt of objectivity was kind of unique for the US. Outlets in Europe were always more partisan.
There comes the question. Should journalists try to be neutral and objective? Is this even possible? Or should they rather try to be transparent about their own biases? I think traditional mainstream media and independent media often give different answers to that. Personally I try consume outlets of both worlds. Both approaches have advantages and disadvantages.
I see a problem with the neutrality approach. One should call lies lies and not try to please both sides just because one wants to be perceived as allegedly objective. There are some many characterists of media outlets which destroy the illiusion of being perfectly objective. Though maybe there are nuances and it cannot be fully seen as a black-white scheme.
CNN recently changed their strategy. They want to be seen as non-partisan now. They try to more balanced for both sides. Sorry CNN your old approach sucked ass and you still suck.
Do you think you would like journalism more if they tried the objectivity approach more again? Or should they be fully transparent about their preferences of ideologies?
Last edited:
