The ignorance of the history of the nation and journalism continues.
The rise of objective journalism as some sort of ideal is a relatively new phenomenon and so this sort of statement drives me batty. I tend to think that general news organizations are best served by such a model, but that doesn’t mean that journalism is defined by that one model. The model when the country was created was a partisan press–one that was ugly and angry and chose sides. Blogs would have fit perfectly.
But more importantly, statements like this fundamentally miss the point that all forms of journalism don’t have to follow the objective model. Journalism includes opinion journalism, advocacy journalism, ideological journalism. They all have advantages and pitfalls, but the primary features all should share are a transparency of purpose (i.e. what model is being followed), factually accurate, and logically sound. In other words, it should be honest and it should make logical and factual statements and arguments.
Dobbs has clearly not been an objective journalist and he seems to be straightforward about that. So what’s the problem? If he makes a factual mistake or makes horribly illogical statements, he should be held to account, but he’s never been a strictly objective journalist as long as I’ve paid attention to him.
Atrios points out how statements by some journalists seem to show a basic cluelessness about their own profession–like have they viewed their own editorial page, but just as important such statements show an utter lack of understanding about the history of this country and the development of the press.
One can’t effectively analyze such publications as the New Republic without understanding how it was formed at the beginning of the 20th Century and how that related to the press at the time.
Political scientists often bemoan the lack of field specific knowledge of journalists (though acknowledging those journalists who do put the work in), but that’s minor compared to the problem of a lack of knowledge by some journalists of their own profession.
ArchP: “I tend to think that general news organizations are best served by such a model, but that doesn’t mean that journalism is defined by that one model.”
As I become more pessimistic in my old age, I’m inclined to think that this model only worked when you had relatively small companies owning the various media outlets. Such an approach seems more and more unlikely in this Age of Conglomerates.
We used to have the ‘Fairness Doctrine’. Now all we have is ‘He Said, She Said’ and that’s not fair (at least to Democrats) at all.