Why does objectivity in journalism cause so much controversy?
I think that objectivity in journalism causes so much controversy because it seems that it is virtually impossible to be so.
Throughout history have there even ever been any completely objective newspapers? There is always a motive, whether it is obvious or not. There will always be biases (i.e. political parties etc.), and people know where to go to get the news that agrees with their own opinions. It has been this way since the foundation of our country, when political parties first emerged. Even the newspapers then were formed around political parties. In order to be completely objective, the newspaper, and journalist would have to cut out all affiliations. They would not be able to be considered either a conservative or liberal or anything in between paper. Is this possible?
It is also incredibly difficult to get all sides of a story. For a journalist to get all of the side, facts, and opinions in every story is incredibly difficult, and it may not be the information that they wish to deliver to the public (depending on what medium they are working for).
Don't get me wrong, I still think that journalist must at least strive towards being objective, but I don't think that it is something that is actually attainable, especially in today's society. Without the ideal of objectivity news would no longer be news, but rather commentary ( which some "news source" have already become but I will not name names in honor of trying to remain objective myself).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
You made some very interesting points.
It is sometimes scary for me to think where the news I am receiving actually comes from and whether or not I am reading the "whole" story.
I agree that it is very difficult to attain all information and perspectives on a story, I just wish there was another way of going about it so that the news I receive isn't as filtered as it is today.
Post a Comment