Subjective vs. Objective News

Having served nearly thirty years at CBS News, Mr. Goldberg had earned a reputation as one of the most original writers and thinkers in broadcast journalism. However, when he observed his own industry, he realized the liberal media had completely missed their mission to give honest news. After years of sharing his observations and promoting more balanced reportings, Goldberg soon realized that no one listened because they believed they were doing the right thing. The liberal bias continued, therefore Bernard Goldberg decided to take the situation into his own hands and expose the distortion of the media himself. Goldberg’s breathtaking and shocking best seller book, Bias, reveals the close-mindedness of the news culture and their mission to entertain rather than share facts.

Theodore Dawes is a writer and reporter from Alabama, he uses examples from the frustration of the people in view of the media, and but brings a better understanding to the process that reporter and editors have to go though in creating a story. He states that objectivity has no existence in news reporting, but journalists still provide the truth that it does exist. Reporters have only so much face time to provide a segment, how can they possibly provide multiple sides of a story and not expect to get all of the facts. Editors and reporter have to make difficult decisions including, the morality of the story and what facts they can possibly leave out. Even though it seems the media is only trying to persuade and pick sides in a story, this

Twenty-first century reporters fill the airwaves with “news” pertaining to facets of life entirely opposite of awareness and activism. When news regarding anything aside from the lives of celebrities or current pop culture does make the headlines, the story seems presented in a watered-down, somehow censored, fashion; leaving the reader asking more questions than they received answered. As the major methods of mass media become increasingly consumer driven, the great majority are presented with less mentally stimulating material called “news”. As a result, Americans are often less informed, and thus less willing to become involved in, political, social, and economic issues, nation and worldwide. Through the application of relevant and straightforward journalism, like that practiced by Ida B. Wells, the people of this country may be armed with the knowledge needed to have an effect on the events unfolding today that will affect tomorrow.

Clay Shirky who wrote Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable (1993) argues that society doesn’t need newspapers society needs journalism to save society. Shirky supports this argument by giving a historical background to the problems newspapers face and how the problems have developed over time and the solutions society has came up with. The blogger concludes that in order for journalism to go farther new models must be created in place of past molds. Shirky directs this blog toward the current and future generations in attempt to motivate new models and methods of journalism.

Journalists are infamous for their motivation to produce hard hitting editorials, twisting the truth for their own selfish benefit. Steve Chapman strays away from this stereotype by ensuring integrity in every article. Continuously, Chapman strives to present the public with his analytical opinions. Douglas Adams describes the drive of Steve Chapman; “To give real service, you must add something which cannot be bought of measured with money, and that is sincerity and integrity”. Steven Chapman, who writes weekly op-eds for the Chicago Tribune, delivers insight into national headlines using suggestive rhetoric appeals to address the reader’s fears of uncertainty followed by accredited reasoning, a condescending tone targeted at the written subject, calling the reader for reformation within society, and dashes to separate general statements from definitive fact, shifting from a mission-based point of view to thought-provoking opinionated writing in order to spark motivation within his readers using his opinions so that they can take action to better their communities in hopes of improving future national development.

It is important that news broadcasting networks do not let personal bias effect the story that’s being told to its audience. People who watch the news, opinions are heavily influenced by the information given to them. Viewers think their opinion is original but are unaware that the information they receive is biased and is meant to influence and form their opinions about a certain topic or argument. Many believe that the news is unbiased and factual because journalist or experts are providing them with evidence.When, in fact, these news outlets are filled with producers, reporters, and writers, who share the same viewpoints. This is groupthink and groupthink is very prominent in news broadcasting networks. Groupthink is when a group of people who share the same ideologies make decisions as a group. In an interview with Fox Business’s John Stossel, Bernie Goldberg explains that groupthink effects the viewer because like-minded people at news networks only show the audience one-side of an argument or story because of their personal opinions on a the topic. This means that news

Newspapers and other forms of news are very vital communication methods in the world today. The goal of news is to sell us their ideas by being biased and talking about how their idea is best. News can give us biased information although, the viewer could do further research on the

Augie Fleras and John Lock Kunz further the argument, pointing out that what appears as mainstream and unbiased is, in actuality, socially constructed. Fleras and Kunz point out that news items (i.e. the events or issues that are covered) are chosen by personnel (such as editors) on the basis of personal, institutional, corporate, and commercial priorities. 7 In other words, the news media is market driven. The mainstream news media, therefore, are not merely

The reflection period out of this conversation was for me shocking. As an engaged political person, I at least try to be engaged with the news. I find that CBS and New York Times are the most reliable news corporation out there with little to no bias at all, all facts. However, my colleagues find that the current mainstream news media are becoming either gossip, tabloid, or fake news channels. Respectively, I take offense to their beliefs on the basis that the news today is fake. Throughout history, it has been the news and investigative journalism that led to the many stories that transformed this nation into many shapes and forms. Without the news, a society will be at worst an anarchist society where nobody trusts each other or a tyrannical society where the populace will fall for anything that the state displays. It has been an American right of having open news sources, do Americans want to disregard this right in favor of being handed a silver platter of information from bias sources? Anyways, going back to

In today’s society, remaining connected and knowledgeable of current events and the newest trends is vital to staying ahead in business, education, and social standing. This information is supplied to everyone through the internet, newspapers, television, and radio. One can tune into stations such as CNN, NBC, Fox News, Al-Jazeera, and many others (“SQs of Media Outlets”). In order to meet the needs of viewers, readers, and listeners, the ideal media system would contain accurate, quick information, with a purely impartial view on the facts as they are known. However, this modern media system has not maintained an objective view, pushing opinionated and slanted reporting onto the population in order to create profit and gain customers. The exploitation of information media for personal gain has created a toxic and inaccurate present, constant in today’s society.

In a publication Objectivity & Balance: Today’s Best Practices in American Journalism by Joel Kaplan, the associate Dean for

Nowadays journalists have the responsibility to report facts as accurately, objectively, and disinterestedly as is humanly possible. ‘’The, honest, self-disciplined, well-trained reporter seeks to be a propagandist for nothing but the truth’’ (Casey, 1944b).

Many critics reject the notion of objectivity on the grounds that no person can be objective because we have biases and a variety of conflicts that we bring to our jobs. Mitchell Stephens, author of Beyond News: The Future of Journalism offers an argument against objectivity. Stephens states that objectivity is impossible because as much as one may try to disappear from the work, there is a kind of meditation that takes place in journalism no matter what, (117). By selecting who to interview or which side of a complex political dispute to air, journalists are evaluating and judging, and not being “perfectly neutral,” (117). According to Stephens, there are many problems with the effort to balance and see no right or wrong when writing a story. One of these problems is that traditional objective coverage flattens the understanding of politics. Furthermore, an equally balanced piece is too willing to leave it there, making it “lazy and relieves journalists of any responsibility for determining whether he or she might be in error,” (122). Objectivity is also a demanding ideal and the rules are routinely broken by profit-seeking news organizations. Even if it is possible, it is undesirable because it forces writers to use restricted formats and fails to provide readers with analysis and interpretation. Stephens states that “traditional objectivity not only filters what journalists can say but filters the view of the work they present,” (126). Thus, traditional objectivity and

Objective journalism originated in response to yellow journalism. Objective journalism is reporting facts rather than opinions and presents both sides of the partisan debate. Objective journalism became the new norm of society and ultimately eliminated most of yellow journalism. With the development of cable television and FM radio, the news began to take a more partisan role and led to the increase of party polarization, which is the further divide between Republicans and Democrats. With the rise of social media, such as Facebook and Twitter, the creation of “fake news” is becoming imminent. Today, news organizations are using the tactics of yellow journalism in politics to gain the attention of the audience and provide false facts that produce a major response from the viewers. Ideas and propaganda material are able to spread faster and to a wider range of people through social media. Much of this material is “fake news” that usually discredits one of the political parties, Republicans or Democrats. With the wide spread of this negativity toward one party, the opposing party strengthens its ideals and ultimately leads to increased party polarization.

To wholly have a grasp on how this new founded approach to journalism has changed alongside technology—as well as understanding the dangers such openness brings forth—one has to understand what exactly those changes are. Primarily, those that are writing for the sake of offering information have, whether willingly or not, fed into the usage of social media as it has become a centralized method of distribution that is relatively inescapable with the current times. As such those framing the news for the masses find an authentic avenue to stay in contact via social media that has benefits ranging from, “its extraordinary newsgathering potential; its potential as a new tool to engage the audience; and as a way of distributing our news” (Eltringham, 2012), all of which are deeply different from the presentation of reporting that occurred during earlier eras. Days of strongly structured instances of journalism that could not travel with such speed have been replaced as, “social media has trashed many of the foundations on