![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I ran across a very interesting article here. This paragraph really caught my attention:
Ultimately, journalists should care less about measuring the war's outcomes than they do about providing information so that Americans can take their own measurements. They should add up the casualties and costs, calculate the time involved to achieve the stated goals, provide a variety of viewpoints about the eventual political consequences — and then turn the facts and figures and informed opinions over to their audiences.
But what I really find interesting about that sentiment is that I don't believe that most journalists believe that their audiences are smart enough to form their own opinions. Or rather, they believe that they aren't smart enough to come to the right opinion.
See, we poor rubes who live in that intellectual wasteland of "average citizen" may not realize what we are supposed to think. If all they do is give us the facts, we may have the gall to actually take their facts and form an opinion that isn't what they want. It's much safer to make sure that they report the "facts" in such a way that we have no choice but to agree with them.
Don't believe me? Check out the difference in reporting. And I'm not talking about sources such as The National Review or The New Republic (both of whom do occasionally have very interesting articles). Instead, check it out in the "major" all-news outlets, say, CNN and FoxNews. OK, I realize that CNN has a much less obvious political lien than FoxNews, but the analogy is sound.
And the most disheartening thing is that it's obvious that there is a growing feeling among some non-media people that news outlets should form opinions for their viewers. The speakers at the protests/rallies have said that "The news is lying" because the reports don't say what they want them too. People are protesting CNN with signs that say "War is not a game" because they don't believe that CNN is being "serious" enough -- translation, they aren't being obvious enough with the "this war is evil" message.
Poor CNN, I think they try hard to be objective. Obviously they weren't aware that to some people "objective" means "shows the opinion I want".
I think it's arrogance. People believe that given a set of facts, intelligent people -- people like them -- could only come to one, right decision. People who don't are not intelligent enough or too "zealous" or have some sort of underhanded ulterior motive.
Ultimately, journalists should care less about measuring the war's outcomes than they do about providing information so that Americans can take their own measurements. They should add up the casualties and costs, calculate the time involved to achieve the stated goals, provide a variety of viewpoints about the eventual political consequences — and then turn the facts and figures and informed opinions over to their audiences.
But what I really find interesting about that sentiment is that I don't believe that most journalists believe that their audiences are smart enough to form their own opinions. Or rather, they believe that they aren't smart enough to come to the right opinion.
See, we poor rubes who live in that intellectual wasteland of "average citizen" may not realize what we are supposed to think. If all they do is give us the facts, we may have the gall to actually take their facts and form an opinion that isn't what they want. It's much safer to make sure that they report the "facts" in such a way that we have no choice but to agree with them.
Don't believe me? Check out the difference in reporting. And I'm not talking about sources such as The National Review or The New Republic (both of whom do occasionally have very interesting articles). Instead, check it out in the "major" all-news outlets, say, CNN and FoxNews. OK, I realize that CNN has a much less obvious political lien than FoxNews, but the analogy is sound.
And the most disheartening thing is that it's obvious that there is a growing feeling among some non-media people that news outlets should form opinions for their viewers. The speakers at the protests/rallies have said that "The news is lying" because the reports don't say what they want them too. People are protesting CNN with signs that say "War is not a game" because they don't believe that CNN is being "serious" enough -- translation, they aren't being obvious enough with the "this war is evil" message.
Poor CNN, I think they try hard to be objective. Obviously they weren't aware that to some people "objective" means "shows the opinion I want".
I think it's arrogance. People believe that given a set of facts, intelligent people -- people like them -- could only come to one, right decision. People who don't are not intelligent enough or too "zealous" or have some sort of underhanded ulterior motive.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-03-23 10:39 am (UTC)From:I thank them for one thing; that I have felt forced to search out news of events from a myriad of sources, using all my senses before coming to a conclusion. I have to believe it's made me a better citizen, though at times an insufferable boor:)
But I do have an option to your/others/my theory of teaching the unwashed masses what they surely coudn't comprehend on their own.
I think the wish of objectivity is an ideal worth striving for, but nearly impossible in practice. Only the most inhumane of us can willingly seperate what we feel from what we know except in the most mundane circumstances. Some do better than others at quashing their own views, but as the world likely contains more journalists than plumbers, I'd guess that the preponderance of those who deliver our daily bread are imperfect in that arena.
While I have no doubt there are those that zealously believe they, as "god's" chosen are on a mission to interpret so that we might be enlightened, and networks who not only approve but encourage that behavior, I do think that most reporters are simply fallible and try as they might to be non human, fail in their attempts.
I usually think as you do and am as justifiably outraged by the condescension. But I try to keep the option in reserve for those times when I'm weary of thinking I'm being abused and need a little faith in humanitry to replace my abject contempt.
But then, I've voted Republican more than once so what the hell would I know?