clipped from yglesias.thinkprogress.org
|
The problem here is the media, as Matthew Yglesias points out.
"Obviously, it’s appropriate for the press to devote more scrutiny to the powers that be than to the opposition party’s ideas," he writes. "But virtually none of the coverage I’ve read of Republican criticisms of Obama’s economic strategy is taking note of the fact that the alternative being offered us is insane."
This is the "two sides of the story" reporting again. They'll report both arguments to any question as if they were equally sound, even when one is completely irrational. The job of a journalist isn't to provide balance, the job of a journalist is to inform.
And they routinely fail in that simple task.
"Obviously, it’s appropriate for the press to devote more scrutiny to the powers that be than to the opposition party’s ideas," he writes. "But virtually none of the coverage I’ve read of Republican criticisms of Obama’s economic strategy is taking note of the fact that the alternative being offered us is insane."
This is the "two sides of the story" reporting again. They'll report both arguments to any question as if they were equally sound, even when one is completely irrational. The job of a journalist isn't to provide balance, the job of a journalist is to inform.
And they routinely fail in that simple task.
1 comments:
As a former journalist, I've long known that "balanced journalism" is a crock of shit. Objectivity isn't balance, objectivity is honesty. It's really not hard to grasp. But it is harder to defend when attacked, and that's why cowardly journalists - i.e. everyone who's subject to the US legal system - opt for the "balanced" approach instead.
Post a Comment