I think it's great that the domain of TV is being wrenched from the monopolistic clutches of huge comglamorates, finally. There are now actual commercial web TV stations, like for example VBS.tv.
Talking about them, they seem to produce real substantial work, and I like their statement: "Traditional journalism always aspires to objectivity, and since day one with the magazine we never believed in that... Our ethos is subjectivity with real substantiation."
Years ago I had a realization that what I disliked about traditional news-media journalism was exactly that, the affectation of objectivity. Because for one thing it's untrue, they rarely even try to be objective. And even if they did, it simply is not possible, an objective viewpoint does not exist. So it's a lie and pretense at the most profound level.
7 comments:
an objective viewpoint does not exist
It's a bit like saying light does not exist because shadows are everywhere. Without an objective view there can be no progress in the sciences, no value judgements of any merit, etc. Because a thing is difficult or rare does not mean it doesn't exist.
Like the liar who says honesty is a myth. He doesn't say it because it's true but because it justifies his behavior. Or, to revisit a recent topic here, the Christian who claims human morality doesn't exist except through the grace of the divine. Not because it's true but because it justifies all moral failing.
A truly objective viewpoint may exist, but it will be a divine one, not a human one. We can only see things from the viewpoint of our own organism, group, culture, etc. Even species. We have as much chance of being truly objective as a deep-sea fish has of imagining what life looks like for an eagle or an ant.
In journalism, I do not think objectivity exists.
What would an objective viewpoint on african american civil rights in america be like? What would be considered objective in 1959? And what would be considered an objective view of the same subject in 1909?
The way I see it, the first rule of journalism is, "Write what your boss wants to hear, or you are out of a job." Objectivity in journalism today means, "write what all the bosses want to hear."
I think journalists got to write what their customers (the real bosses) want to hear.
Good news won't sell.
Here's a tip, instead of calling it the six o'clock news show, call it the six o'clock propaganda show.
Rich newspaper barons don't buy newspapers because they have a sense of duty about objectivity, they buy them because they want to influence us to their way of thinking.
Incidentally, it's for this same reason that I have a blog.
Exactly. Me too. But you and I are "good guys" because we are not rich enough to own a newspaper chain. :-)
I think the proper formulation should be "a perfectly neutral viewpoint does not exist in journalism". What's objectivity exactly? Everything we see is tinted by our view as humans, not to mention our individual culture, which alone can hugely vary.
The strict viewpoint objectivity of an animal or an extraterrestrial intelligence would be incredibly different.
Just imagine the latest Iraq war described through the pack mentality of a wolf reporter, not taking sides at all...
Hey, I feel inspiration coming. A merry delirium for my blog, hopefully. I'll keep you informed.
Post a Comment