Thursday, October 22, 2009

Great Moments in Journalism

After writing an article with several bullshit claims, Time magazine's Jay Newton-Small responds with this:
I presented both sides of the story. I'll leave it to columnists and readers to draw their own conclusions on who had the best case.
(Bangs head on desk)
I believe quite firmly that the proliferation of Huffington Posts, Matt Drudges and other slanted news is what's killing our profession. If you are looking for news with an opinion, that's great. But I think news should be about representing both sides; striving for balance and fairness. Unfortunately, reliably unbiased news is harder and harder to come by these days because news agencies are trying to cater to people like you: people who prefer to view the world through one lens or another but rarely both.



1 comment:

  1. Maybe she should not have used the word "imperial" when referring to czars. the rest of the article seemed fine to me. it even even gives sort of a backhand slap to glenn beck's credibility when she quotes Collins for the tone of the hearing.

    however, the analysis of this article does reveal a remarkable oversight in this unbiased form of news gathering. Although, the article contained opinions from both sides of the argument it failed support the arguments with facts. But I feel like it is a double edged sword. if she did include facts there would be the fear of the article becoming biased not for her own faullt but for the simple reason that one of every two sides of an argument usually has one person lying. In this case it was Lieberman. To denounce his claims with truth would make everything else he was quoted for less credible and thus bias the article.

    Not only would Newton-Small never receive a quote from Lieberman again she probably wouldn't receive many from other politicians out of fear of her actually checking facts. By only presenting opposing opinions she avoids the sticky situation of reporting the truth while simultaneously discrediting her sources. She gives just enough information to make the article news worthy and truthful without offending anyone except the intelligence of the reader. And, that is her definition of modern, unbiased news media. She reports the news raw and unbiased. IT is up to the reader to decide whether to check the credibility of her sources and to get the facts that back her lack of analysis. I mean isn't truth a matter of perception anyway? Am I right? I am and you can quote me on that.