[HoniSoit]

It has been touched upon in other threads but I’d like to focus exclusively on it here if possible. I am very much interested in your opinions on the following questions: What is your conception of objectivity? Does it exist, and is it attainable? In the context of our present day Western media, is it something we should pursue? What would you propose to make the Media more objective in terms of institutional structure and content? Finally based on what criteria do you make a judgement as to whether the Media (the institution, or a particular news item) is objective or otherwise?

[The Immortal Goon]

To be objective as possible, it would need to just list cold hard facts and allow the viewer to put them in t context. This hasn't really been possible so much before as it requires some amount of active participation on the user's part. Potemkin once, and I think rightly, said that the embryonic form of the new media already exists today - and somehow it will be able to do as is above.

If that makes any sense.

-TIG

[Kylie]

I'm with tig, to be as objective as possible. However, Dan mentions in those other threads that it's impossible to be completely objective, and I agree to a certain extent. People pick and choose what is important in a story and report it; however, as a reporter, you need to be able to put all personal biases aside in order to write a story, at least in my opinion. If for some reason, a reporter is unable to do so, I don't think they should be writing the story, unless it was an opinion or an editorial piece. Same goes with television, and other forms of media.

Well, in the United States, our media, at least in my opinion, is heavily influenced by the companies that own it. I've mentioned time and time again that three big companies own the major networks and the smaller networks in the United States. Therefore the content is controlled by that. That bothers me. I personally don't have a problem with a media outlet being an independant company, but when it's taken over by something bigger, what you can report and how you can report it seems to then be muddled.

[Caron]

Objectivity is possible conceptually, but I doubt the public will ever see the media completely practice it

Although I believe that the closest thing to true objectivity is well written poetry

[Ash Faulkner]

I think people can only make informed decisions if they are informed, not lectured. They should be given the facts, and from them, make judgement. I don't think real objectivity is ever attainable (it itself is relative to your opinion) simply because the news is collected and distributed by humans who will have political ideas. A political journalist for example has got to have political attitudes, otherwise he or she would be a pretty rubbish politico.

What annoys me is subtle bias. In the American media, any fool can see what is going on with Fox, for example. But here in Britain, it's far more subtle, and therefore I believe far more dangerous. I can see easily through bias and am therefore constantly on guard for it, but not everybody can or is. News stations describing reports or events as "shocking" is enough to put a spin on the entire report, and it happens regularly. I'm very worried about it, but I don't know can be done. I certainly wouldn't advocate banning freedom of speech.

[QatzelOk]

Ash, if the media bias is so subtle and isolated, then how did the entire Western World miss its own funeral because of global climate change?

You know, the way our mathematical economic models lead inevitably to suicide because they externalise the future and put a diminishing price on human and other life.

How did the human race miss that story if we have any kind of media that is worth wasting your eyes on?

[Dan]

What is your conception of objectivity?

Can not exist in human affairs, except in the minds of idealists. Most often objectivity is merely doublespeak for biased towards my point of view.

Does it exist, and is it attainable?

It does not exist in human affairs and can not be attained.

In the context of our present day Western media, is it something we should pursue?

No. We should not pursue the impossible. If we do, we will only find an "objectivity" highly biased to one particular point of view.

What would you propose to make the Media more objective in terms of institutional structure and content?

Nothing. Make the media free so people can make their own choices.

Finally based on what criteria do you make a judgement as to whether the Media (the institution, or a particular news item) is objective or otherwise?

One of two, depending on my mood:

Does it match my view-point?
or
Does it present a decent balance between varying vewpoints?

To be objective as possible, it would need to just list cold hard facts and allow the viewer to put them in t context.

Two problems already exist with this:
1) By presenting facts one has already eliminated certain other facts, creating bias.
2) Whose facts?

however, as a reporter, you need to be able to put all personal biases aside in order to write a story,

Impossible. Even something as simple as believing mass death is wrong or unwanted is already a bias.

Ash, if the media bias is so subtle and isolated, then how did the entire Western World miss its own funeral because of global climate change?

Do you ever get bored?

[Kylie]

Does it match my view-point?
or
Does it present a decent balance between varying vewpoints?

First of all, why should it matter if it matches your viewpoint. I personally don't think it should. I think there are left and right biases in the media and they aren't apologetic about it. Granted, it *does* depend on the nature of the story, and whether or not you're writing an opinion or straight newspiece, I guess in my mind, if it *does* match my viewpoint, I get fustrated, and feel it's slanted too much.

Impossible. Even something as simple as believing mass death is wrong or unwanted is already a bias.

I think you're making it too simple here. Of course there's *that* type of bias, but I think if you're so overwhelmed and overcome with emotion about something that you can't present both sides without making a slant toward one view or another, you need to give it to someone whose emotions and personal issues aren't affecting the story to the point where it presents a clear and unfair slant to the story.

[QatzelOk]

Do you ever get bored?

Are you saying that Westerners' boredom is drawing them to media products that destroy their sense of what is real?

Are you saying that powerful interests are using their media interests to produce and normalise narratives that take power AWAY from the non-bourgeois classes?

Is that what you're saying, Dan? Because if it is, I'm just not buying your product or service. I want my society to be a success, no matter how savage and unproductive it is.

[KurtFF8]

I think that the media ought to be analytical and objective. To achieve this they should report the news as they get it, provide all of the possible viewpoints of it and in their proper contexts (see my Straw Man theory thread) and be truly analytical with the said news story.

[Dan]

First of all, why should it matter if it matches your viewpoint.

My paradigm is the only judge of reality I have and must therefore be used as my objective truth for me to be able to practically function. Therefore, the most objective news is the one most matching my viewpoint.

but I think if you're so overwhelmed and overcome with emotion about something that you can't present both sides without making a slant toward one view or another, you need to give it to someone whose emotions and personal issues aren't affecting the story to the point where it presents a clear and unfair slant to the story.

So rather than getting a very open, easily recognized bias, you get a subtle, creeping bias which is very hard to spot but still maipulates you?

Are you saying that Westerners' boredom is drawing them to media products that destroy their sense of what is real?

Are you saying that powerful interests are using their media interests to product narratives that take power AWAY from the non-bourgois classes?

Is that what you're saying, Dan, because if it is, I'm just not buying your product or service. I want my society to be a success, no matter how savage and unproductive it is.

No, I'm saying you keep posting the exact same crap over and over again, and manage to turn every topic into one of your little hobby horses. Then when one fo your little hobby horses is actually somewhat on topic, you go and try to derail it with one of your otehr little pet peeves. Do you ever get bored of trying your damnedest to make any intelligent conversation of this forum impossible due to your derailment of threads and unceasing, single-minded, meaningless crap.

analytical and objective

These two are contradictory. As soon as analysis begins, it must occur in some paradigm and will immediately become subjective.

To achieve this they should report the news as they get it,

Biased by the journalists?

provide all of the possible viewpoints of it and in their proper contexts

So when covering 9/11 the news should present "truthers" and anti-semite views as equal to what actually happened?

Or what if one side has a number of different views (say Hamas saying 25 dead, the PLO saying 40 dead, and Palestinian civilians saying 50 dead children) andthe otehr side has one consistent story (the Israeli's say 15 militants dead). This would present an extreme bias to one side.

be truly analytical with the said news story.

As mentioned earlier, analysis kills objectivity. Analysis is subjective as a matter of course as it must work within the paradigm of the analyser. Analysis can not be neutral.

[QatzelOk]

Do you ever get bored of trying your damnedest to make any intelligent conversation of this forum impossible due to your derailment of threads and unceasing, single-minded, meaningless crap.

What gets really boring sometimes, Dan, is the way most of your "arguments" come down to empty semantics rather than the core problematics of many issues.

That and your resorting to ad homonym to replace actual debate.

[Kylie]

My paradigm is the only judge of reality I have and must therefore be used as my objective truth for me to be able to practically function. Therefore, the most objective news is the one most matching my viewpoint.

How can that be objective when it's from your viewpoint. How do you know that what you really believe is really real? Why do you think that *your* truth is objective as opposed to other truths. You say you *can't* be objective in reporting the news, so why do you think you *can* be objective when you're watching it, reading, etc? You can't say the news is objective and yet you say you use an objective eye when you watch it.

So rather than getting a very open, easily recognized bias, you get a subtle, creeping bias which is very hard to spot but still maipulates you?

So you would rather have one side slanted toward one way without hearing what the other side has to say at all?

Let's take your news example:

Or what if one side has a number of different views (say Hamas saying 25 dead, the PLO saying 40 dead, and Palestinian civilians saying 50 dead children) andthe otehr side has one consistent story (the Israeli's say 15 militants dead). This would present an extreme bias to one side.

Why not both, I ask? If you're saying both are true, then report it, it's really not that hard. I think you're absolutely right that one side is biased but a good reporter would take both sides and report it in their story.

The way we have to view the news, IMO, is to take both sides of an argument and apply it, because somewhere, you find the truth. I find it funny that people say I hate Fox News, simply because they've only HEARD they're biased toward the right. Has anyone ever taken the time to watch it? Has anyone ever taken the time to watch CNN? The best way to find the truth in stories is to watch both, because the truth is in there, but it's muddled by both sides. It's sad this is what our media is reduced to these days. There was a time where both sides were reported, and you could easily discern the truth, using your own judgement.

[KurtFF8]

These two are contradictory. As soon as analysis begins, it must occur in some paradigm and will immediately become subjective.

..What? You can't have objectivity without analytic skills otherwise you won't take into account all that needs to be taken into account.

I don't understand how you can think that objectivity and analysis can possibly be contradictory, I think that they actually complement each other by definition.

[Dan]

What gets really boring sometimes, Dan, is the way most of your "arguments" come down to empty semantics rather than the core problematics of many issues.

How so?

That and your resorting to ad homonym to replace actual debate.

I do that only when I am sick of ignorant comments being made. I don't ad hom when there is an actual real debate taking place. I only do it when repetitive mindless drivel is starting to annoy me.

How can that be objective when it's from your viewpoint. How do you know that what you really believe is really real?

I think you are taking taht a bit to seriously, it was partially a joke (kidding on the square, if I may).

But anyway, I don't. But I don't really know anything is real, but there are certai nthings I must accept to function.

Why do you think that *your* truth is objective as opposed to other truths. You say you *can't* be objective in reporting the news, so why do you think you *can* be objective when you're watching it, reading, etc?

I didn't say it was objective, I said I have to act like it is objective to be able to function and not become paralyzed by an overload of analysis and information.

So you would rather have one side slanted toward one way without hearing what the other side has to say at all?

No. As, I've said, I'd rather let the media be free and let people choose what they want. The quest for objectivity is impossible, but the quest for media freedom is not.

Why not both, I ask?

You can, but with that example, there would be a large pro-Palestianian bias in the reporting of both news. By reporting three figures (each progressively larger) of Palestinian statistics and one consistent figure of Israeli statistics, one has a 3:1 bias of news time to the Palestinian side and a large bias for the "average" death count calculated by the viewer at home towards the Palestinian statistics.

If you're saying both are true, then report it, it's really not that hard.

I'm not. I'm saying neither is true, but presenting both sides and all four figures will lead to a bias.

..What? You can't have objectivity without analytic skills otherwise you won't take into account all that needs to be taken into account.

I don't understand how you can think that objectivity and analysis can possibly be contradictory, I think that they actually complement each other by definition.

You can't ahve objectivity, period, but that's beside the point.

What you say is true, for the viewer at home. But for someone presenting on TV, their biases and paradigms will be an essential part of their analysis of any given issue. These will bleed over into the analysis and increase subjectivity.

[Kylie]

You can, but with that example, there would be a large pro-Palestianian bias in the reporting of both news. By reporting three figures (each progressively larger) of Palestinian statistics and one consistent figure of Israeli statistics, one has a 3:1 bias of news time to the Palestinian side and a large bias for the "average" death count calculated by the viewer at home towards the Palestinian statistics.

I'd also be the first one to say the Palestianians are saying three different figures, and would question how *many* people actually did die, so in my mind, if I looked at this particular news story as you wrote it, I would actually say the Israeli's are more consistant, and more than likely to be telling the truth as to how many were dead. I would also go on to see the Palestianians were sensationalizing how many people were dead, and say the story itself has an Isreali bias. However, looking at all the statistics, you are able to make a judgement for yourself, because they were all reported. Just because you have three different numbers and more mentions of Palestianians, doesn't necessarily mean there is a Palestianian bias. Reporting one and not the other is inconsitent, IMO. So in essence, all of the 'joke' 9-11 conspiracy theorists along with the actual truth deserve a place in the media, because without one, you can't balance the other to find the truth, because sometimes, the truth is in the muddly middle where nobody can see it. Without reporting it, you would never know.

However, true bias is impossible, but you can *try* to be as objective as you possibly can, and *emotionally* remove yourself from the story, in a manner of speaking. It's difficult to do, but to be a good reporter, you have to strive to do that. To not strive for that in the media, seems like a cop out and giving up. Oops, we can't be *truly* objective, so why even try?

I think you are taking that a bit to seriously, it was partially a joke (kidding on the square, if I may).
But anyway, I don't. But I don't really know anything is real, but there are certai nthings I must accept to function.

You forgot the joke font, Dan. I took your comment seriously .

No. As, I've said, I'd rather let the media be free and let people choose what they want. The quest for objectivity is impossible, but the quest for media freedom is not.

But it's seemingly impossible to have media freedom when you have special interests involved (i.e. large corporations) that decide what is important, not for the reason of reporting news where people decide, but making a profit. I agree with you the media should be free, but in it's current state, at least in the United States, it's not. Independant media that's paid for by the people, not corporate advertising is the way to go here.