News should present the TRUTH. Idea of 'unbiased' news is recent.

[sharedvalues]

There's an idea in journalism that there should be two kinds of "news" - "unbiased" news and "editorials", where opinions are allowed.

To be brief: this is bunk. All news has some slant. When journalists try to be "unbiased", they fall into a trap laid by the right -- the "Bothsidesism" trap. The right is willing to lie blatantly, and the left is not. So the right actively exploits the media by lying, knowing they will not be called out on it, because news sources think they must "present what people say", even if it is a lie.

This is one of the cornerstone problems with our news media:
Bothsidesism and the myth of 'unbiased news'.
(Other problems include infotainment/for-profit media, and right-wing propaganda.)


The Economist covered this well a few years ago:

https://www.economist.com/node/18904112

The idea that journalists should be impartial in reporting news is a relatively recent one. “A lot of newspaper people treat it as one true religion, when it's an artefact of a certain set of economic and historical circumstances,” says Joshua Benton of the Nieman Journalism Lab. America's Founding Fathers nurtured a vibrant, fiercely partisan press with no licensing of newspapers or policing of content. During the 19th century newspapers gradually adopted a more objective stance, for several reasons. By appealing to a wider audience, they were able to increase their circulation and hence their advertising revenue. Consolidation, and the emergence of local newspaper monopolies, also promoted impartiality. “When you are the only paper in town, you can't risk pissing off liberals by being too conservative, or vice versa,” says Mr Benton.

With the professionalisation of journalism in the early 20th century came a more detached style of reporting. In effect, a deal was struck between advertisers, publishers and journalists, says New York University's Jay Rosen. Journalists agreed not to alienate anyone so that advertisers could aim their messages at everyone. That way the publishers got a broader market and the journalists got steady jobs but gave up their voices. Objectivity is “a grand bargain between all the different players”, says Mr Rosen. When radio and television emerged, America's private broadcasters embraced impartiality in their news reporting to maximise their appeal to audiences and advertisers and avoid trouble with regulators.

...

One way forward, suggests Mr Rosen, is to abandon the ideology of viewlessness and accept that journalists have a range of views; to be open about them while holding the reporters to a basic standard of accuracy, fairness and intellectual honesty; and to use transparency, rather than objectivity, as the new foundation on which to build trust with the audience.

Another good take is from George Lakoff:

Unfortunately, many intelligent people — including Democrats and journalists — ignore the findings of the cognitive and brain sciences. They put their faith in the outdated idea of Enlightenment Reason, which dates back to the 1650s. As a result, they miss the often-implicit frames, metaphors and narratives that structure morally important truths. They wrongly believe that bare facts and logic alone win the moral debates.

The same cannot be said of the professional troll armies prowling on the other side of our computer screens. A recent study of the strategies used by Russian and terrorist trolls online found that they have a strong grasp of basic brain science.

According to cyberwarfare expert Haroon Ullah: “Recent research into both the Russians’ and the Islamic State’s models of propaganda, as well as interviews with defectors, unveil that: 1) people tend to believe something when it is repeated, 2) Russia and Islamic State fanboys gain the advantage when they get to make the first impression and 3) subsequent rebuttals may actually work to reinforce the original misinformation, rather than dissipate it.”

Sound familiar?

--------------------------


Thus, if we want to fix American public debate, we must discard this recent idea that news should always be unbiased and it's just ok to present what people say as news, even if it's a lie. It's not ok. If someone is lying on TV, they should be corrected immediately. This is a prime reason we have gotten to this point, and we need to fix it. CNN should stop airing the lies of the president and his lying press secretary. Cable news should refocus on the TRUTH.

[unblock]

1. Theres a lot of good wisdom here, but even truth has bias

Much of what they reported about Hillary was “truth”. But repeatedly dwelling on minutiae of her emails and security and the fake investigations helped create an impression that she was a security risk and that she had done something horrendously bad and dangerous to national security.

Had it been reported fairly, it would have gotten minimal airtime. They would have said that what she did easily falls in the category of things that get only warnings, not indictments. They would have said that anyone who handles that kind of volume of classified info could easily get a warning from time to time.

And of course, they would have reported that vastly bigger security risks include ignorance and contempt of proper practices, shady financial dealings, thousands of civil suits, multiple accusations of sexual assault, ties to countries like Russia, ties to organized crime, and
refusing to comply with routine disclosures.

All these are truths as was. But there’s also huge bias in the editing and presentation of truth.

[Dennis Donovan]

3. "Truth" seems to have a Liberal bias...

[unblock]

5. Except when presented in the media. They can be highly selective in the facts they choose to air

[Dennis Donovan]

6. I'm not a journalist, but I've been on the periphery of it

... and I know this much. Nothing is more important to a TRUE journalist THAN the truth. It's the EDITORS that can, and will, skew a story one way or another.

[unblock]

7. Of this I have no doubt. Much like many industries

Workers often lean left, but the boss makes the rules and bosses lean right.

[american_ideals]

10. Truth. But Cilizza et al. are not real journalists. They're click-chasers

[Hermit-The-Prog]

2. wait a minute

Are you saying I can't cure skin cancer by yelling, "Out, out damned spot!"? But if I really, *really* believe it's true, shouldn't it be?

[RandomAccess]

4. I think Cenk Uyger had a tremendous quote along these lines -

ETA: Here's a clip from Chuck Todd saying, in effect, it's not the media's job to correct false info:

[sharedvalues]

8. Yes thank you! Great graphic

And Todd and Cillizza have both bought into bothsidesism and covering the horse race, not the facts.

We’re lucky Tapper is covering the truth. Tapper has been good.

[RandomAccess]

9. Wish they'd put Tapper on opposite Matthews

[american_ideals]

11. Nice. Thanks.