Does Objectivity Affect Substance?

We talked a little bit about the political spectrum and where journalists should or shouldn't fall on this scale. The whole concept of centralism really struck me as interesting: the idea that objectivity is not obtainable no matter where you identify yourself. If you are a journalist that claims to report right down the middle with no biased-lean to either side then you are inevitably making yourself centrally-biased.

As our professor Jeff Cohen said: "That's not political journalism that is merely more stenography for those in power."

So, how do you stay objective in journalism? David Carr in his article about objectivity in journalism in the NY Times pointed out that sometimes a balancing act in articles can read as if you are dancing around the issue and not making any real headway.

This makes for wish-washy articles with no substance. So, how do you stay relatively neutral on subjects while providing legitimate analysis for your readers?

Maybe you don't. Neutrality is good in hard news stories, sensationalism is obviously problematic but with political journalism a stance sometimes need to be taken. Standing in the middle of the political spectrum gets you no-where. As I've mentioned before maybe a disclaimer could help remedy this problem or perhaps it will merely discredit journalistic work. Regardless I think all news needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Read up on the journalists you get your news from. Try and discover their stance and then take their reporting for what it is.

In my opinion objectivity is never truly possible but there are ways to report without becoming an PR writer for your political ideology.

Activism in Journalists: Can they Co-exist?

An article in the NY times by David Carr called the age-old debate of objectivity in journalism into question. The question this particular article brought up to me was: Does an activist fundamentally make a good journalist?

I think yes. I feel like my intense interest in political issues/social rights movements is what led me to ultimately study journalism in the first place. Doesn't that kind of drive and passion make up the best reporting?

There is obviously a line to be drawn and precautions to be taken. A warning of biases perhaps? But as Glenn Greenwald points out: 

“It is a matter of being honest or dishonest. All activists are not journalists, but all real journalists are activists. Journalism has a value, a purpose — to serve as a check on power.”

Bill Jacobson of Legal Insurrection

In class on Tuesday we got the chance to talk to the founder of conservative independent blog Legal Insurrection, Bill Jacobson. In our discussion we got to hear about numerous insights to the pros and cons of starting your own blog as well as the hardships that being an independent blog-owner can present. Bill, being a professor at Cornell, really emphasized the backlash he faced professionally. As most colleges are, Cornell tends to be a predominantly liberal campus and upon reading his conservative views on Legal Insurrection many parents and students wrote (sometimes harsh) letters condemning his view points.

Bill also was careful to point out that blogs (that are looking to become high-traffic sites) need to be posting at least 3-4 times a day. "People are looking for fresh content" said Bill, "if there isn't any they won't come back to your site." 

Other than the insider insight on how to create a successful blog I found a few points particularly interesting throughout our open-talk. One being the problem with the google algorithm. When scrolling through the Legal Insurrection blog we found two ads for Hillary Clinton's campaign, asking for support and donations. Being a specifically conservative/right-wing site this was very strange. Bill pointed out that this happens a lot. Google's algorithm factors in how much certain names or phrases are mentioned to produce ads for your site. So, despite the fact that when Bill writes about Hilary or other left-wing political players of the sort it tends to be negative, Google takes this as a sign to advertise left-wing ads on his site. 

Perhaps the most important take-away I got from this talk was that marking politically-driven, truth-telling journalists as "extremists"is not a strictly left-wing problem. An earlier post on my blog talked about how many critics of Izzy Stone and or subjects of his investigative journalism (which actually tended to be one in the same) wrote him off as an "extremist" or a "crazy left-wing liberal." Bill discussed how Legal Insurrection was at the forefront of coverage on the Elizabeth Warren v Scott Brown campaign in Massachusetts. Bill was consistent in calling out Elizabeth Warren on her bluffs and painting a factual picture of her relation to the Native American community. The Warren campaign was quick to label Bill as a "far-right extremist" and write off his reporting as an extension of those beliefs. This re-affirms that regardless of the political side the ugly truth being exposed by journalists is never welcomed and is usually written off by throwing out labels like "extremist" in an attempt to discredit their reporting.

Lastly, I just want to mention my favorite quote from the discussion. Bill spent quite a bit of time discussing how he deals with inappropriate comments as well as the bad-intentioned users who produce them. At one point Bill talked about emails he had received from angry users who had been blocked from commenting on the site due to inappropriate comments. A lot of the users accused Bill of silencing their freedom of speech to which Bill replied "I'm not silencing your speech, you just can't come into my house and say it."

Malala Takes a Stand

Malala Yousafzai recently made a trip to the United States. Along with countless interviews, Malala got  the chance to meet with President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama. Malala is the youngest nominee for the Nobel Peace Prize, at the young age of 16, after standing up to Taliban members and being shot in the head. Malala believes strongly in the power of education and this sentiment was what ultimately got her shot. The press heavily covered every step of Malala's trip to the US however it seems like one major statement by Malala has fallen through the cracks in mainstream media. 

During her visit to the White House, Malala praised Obama for his work in supporting education in Pakistan and Afghanistan but went on to urge him to end the Drone war. "I expressed my concerns that drone attacks are fueling terrorism" said Malala.  "Innocent victims are killed in these acts, and they lead to resentment among the Pakistani people. If we refocus efforts on education it will make a big impact." 

Once again, anti-US sentiment has been stifled by the press. This statement should be making headlines across the country. If a 16-year old standing up to the President of the United States is not newsworthy than I am not sure what is.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/10/11/205176/obama-and-first-lady-meet-with.html#storylink=cpy

IC Student Turns to Kickstarter for Independent Documentary

We discussed the website KickStarter.com in class on Thursday and I was reminded of a current IC student that has her very own Kickstart page for her two documentary films on the Ancient Ecosystems of Vancouver Island. She has actually exceeded her goal of $2,000 and began filming this past summer.

I thought her page was very interesting in how it not only asked for donations from Kickstarter donors but asked page visitors to share the project on social media and get the word out.

I had first heard about Kickstarter in my senior year of high school from a close friend and I think the idea of community members coming together to fund important projects (that otherwise might not have the opportunity to be created) is fascinating and just another example of the power of the internet.

Russell Brand Speaks Up

Russell Brand was recently co-editor of New Statesman's just published revolution-themed issue. In this interview Brand harps on the current state of the political system and fights Paxman's attempt to trivialize the issue at hand. I think this is a great example of mainstream media attempting to belittle the work of independent voices within independent media.

Why has leftist become synonymous with radical?

As I sit here and write my paper on the legendary I.F. Stone Weekly the idea of bias in newspaper writing continues to be cited as a "problem" with Izzy's work and I can't help but ask myself the questions: How can a man with no political affiliation be accused of bias? How can a man who criticizes politicians and their policies irregardless of their political affiliation be accused of having a leftist slant?

More often than not I feel as though any publication that prints the truth or disproves the mainstream media are accused of being crazy left-wing advocates. Since when has the truth become 1) a bad thing and 2) negatively tied to the left-side of the political spectrum?

The best answer I can come up with is that the government and mainstream media (which today are really one in the same) have worked to create an image of the nut-job left-wing radical and now when there are ugly truths uncovered they merely chalk it up to conspiracies or exaggerations cooked up by these left-wing liberals.

Being from a largely republican town, I had one teacher (for International Relations) that was very clearly left-wing. Most kids chalked up his rants and teachings to crazy talk (mainly because they only knew how to regurgitate what their parents said and their parents were merely regurgitating the mainstream media). But as I continue with my college education I am realizing more and more that Mr. Jean wasn't some crazy long-haired hippy strung out on conspiracy theories but rather someone who actually knew what he was talking about.

What I'm getting at here is that people should be careful when they hear things being written off in the news because the news is often writing off the truth.