I <heart> Daily Show...

[khedron]

Even though I don't have cable these days, I know the Daily Show is still out there, and it warms the cockles of my heart to read things like this transcript about the role of the media:

CORDDRY: I'm sorry, my *opinion*? No, I don't have 'o-pin-i-ons'. I'm a reporter, Jon, and my job is to spend half the time repeating what one side says, and half the time repeating the other. Little thing called 'objectivity' -- might wanna look it up some day.

STEWART: Doesn't objectivity mean objectively weighing the evidence, and calling out what's credible and what isn't?

CORDDRY: Whoa-ho! Well, well, well -- sounds like someone wants the media to act as a filter! [high-pitched, effeminate] 'Ooh, this allegation is spurious! Upon investigation this claim lacks any basis in reality! Mmm, mmm, mmm.' Listen buddy: not my job to stand between the people talking to me and the people listening to me.

The person linked to above goes on to say he found this funny, until a day or so later when he saw someone making this exact argument for real. This has become a pet peeve of mine in recent years, so I sympathize. Journalistic objectivity does not mean giving equal time (and weight) to looneys! When the reporter or conversation mediator says, "Okay, now we've heard from the NASA scientists, what does the Flat Earth Society think?", implying that each viewpoint is equally credible, that hurts us all.

Comments

[crouchback.livejournal.com]

The problem is, most journalists don't have the capability or knowledge to objectively weigh the evidence. I especially notice this when defense issues are discussed: a lot of "national security" reports are incredibly clueless (http://www.reason.com/0202/fe.cb.the.shtml) on defense issues, and they tend to vacillate between blind acceptance of what official sources feed them and equally blind rejection of all that official sources tell them. The Operation Tailwind Story of a few years back was a classic example. There was one source with a shady past, and part of his story was that people were running into an area filled with nerve gas wearing only gas masks. Considering that nerve gasses are really liquids, and standard procedure is, when you suspect its presence, to get a full body suit, this kind of really undermined the credibility of the story. But they ran it without checking the source's background, without seeing if there were holes in his story, etc.

Also, consider that sometimes, the fringe people might be right. Not too long back, people agitating for the rights of African-Americans were a fringe, and the racial inferiority of blacks was taken for granted: it was "scientific," and darn near all the experts would have supported it.

There may be some issues where an attempt to kick out "non-credible" views would simply lead to suppression of unpopular views.

Personally, I think that the news media does kick out things it thinks non-credible. The way the Balkans wars played out on CNN, for instance, when you had Christine Amanpour (who was married to the chief US State Dept official working on the region) putting out stories that were darn close to State Dept. press releases, for instance. Heck, the way the post-war Balkans is being reported is a case in point. There is a very long article (http://www.diacritica.com/sobaka/2004/seselj.html) about the prosecution of one war criminal which hits on points about the Hague Tribunal (such as putting out indictments that make no sense) that you will never, ever see made in the US mass media.

To sum up, I think that, claims of objectivity aside, what you're advocating is already happening. "Non-credible" points of view are already suppressed. But the media lacks the capability to judge, which is why you will not hear critical reporting on the Balkans, but you will see the Flat Earth society get equal time with NASA.

I do, however, think that we're better off than we were before. If you want to, you can find alternative sources of news that don't pretend to an objectivity they don't have, and then you can judge for yourself.

Anyone who stops and thinks can poke a million holes in the Flat Earth Society. And that's the real thing hurting us all. People don't stop and think, they just swallow things presented by a supposedly objective media that isn't objective at all.

[khedron.livejournal.com]

Also, consider that sometimes, the fringe people might be right. Not too long back, people agitating for the rights of African-Americans were a fringe, and the racial inferiority of blacks was taken for granted: it was "scientific," and darn near all the experts would have supported it.

I think you're right, and this is what causes people to go too far the other way. But for myself, being decently well read and highly opinionated, I have no problems saying that creationism shouldn't get an equal say in high school textbooks, and that magnets in the soles of your shoes aren't going to help your circulation. However, too often ideas like these are presented as being as credible, and there's just no evidence for it.

[crouchback.livejournal.com]

As I noted, I think that's a result of the poor ability journalists have to distinguish between what's credible and what's not: heck, read and you'll get plenty more examples.

But I'm being repetitve there. (http://www.vmyths.com)

[lcohen]

i agree with you but i also agree that most *television* "journalists" are picked for their appearance, not their ability to sift through much of anything. carol marin, otoh.... but she's a rare find.

[crouchback.livejournal.com]

I think most print journalists are pretty bad, too. Now that people are obsessively fact checking, sloppy reporting gets caught. And it's pretty darn common.