Journalism, ethics, and truth

[Bootstrap]

I like the Marketwatch graph, probably because it confirms my own bias. Here is a question about it, why are the organizations that are heavy on fact as opposed to opinion clustered in the middle. It seems conceivable there might be a very conservative source, far to the right, or a very liberal source to the left, whose focus is primarily factual reporting and avoids opinion.

But wouldn't a heavy emphasis on fact and journalism ethics get in the way of their agendas?

The sources classified as far to the right or far to the left generally have very clear political agendas, often frame every new story in a small number of pre-defined "us" versus "them" narratives, and are not appealing to people who want to think through the facts and various points of view reasonably and slowly, changing their mind as new facts emerge.

Here's what I am looking for in my sources:

Journalism is guided by five values:

• Honesty: journalists must be truthful. It is unacceptable to report information known to be false, or report facts in a misleading way to give a wrong impression;
• Independence and objectivity: journalists should avoid topics in which they have a financial or personal interest that would provide them a particular benefit in the subject matter, as that interest may introduce bias into their reporting, or give the impression of such bias. In cases where a journalist may have a specific financial or personal interest, the interest should be disclosed;
• Fairness: journalists must present facts with impartiality and neutrality, presenting other viewpoints and sides to a story where these exist. It is unacceptable to slant facts;
• Diligence: a journalist should gather and present pertinent facts to provide a good understanding of the subject reported;
• Accountability: a journalist must be accountable for their work, prepared to accept criticism and consequences.

Many of the sources far to the left or the right aren't even trying to play that game. They warn you that they are the only ones that will tell you the truth, then they lie to you, repeatedly, to promote their agendas.

That doesn't mean you can't find good sources if you want to. That doesn't mean there is no such thing as good journalism.

[Neto]

I think that a first step in achieving objectivity/fairness to the facts is to be self-aware. As I said earlier, I have no journalism training, so I'm responding on the basis of training in Ethnology and Anthropology that I received in the course of an undergrad degree in Christian Applied Anthropology (or "Missiology'). Many Enthnologies can be shown to have been written from a preconceived notion of cultural values, even those by the leading anthropologists of what I would probably consider the heyday of Anthropology, roughly the 1920's to 60's or so.
What I mean by "self-awareness" more precisely is to be able to accurately recognize and describe one's own cultural bias. To claim that one does not have a bias assures that anything written will be "tainted" (or shaped) by that bias. Everyone has a bias - it is a part of culture, and a special and concerted effort is required in order to step outside of it. Peer review can be a great help, obviously especially if the peer(s) consulted have a different bias or cultural viewpoint. (It may, in fact, be nearly impossible to do so, and so it may be preferable to simply acknowledge the personal bias in the introduction or forward of any document. In this way the reader can read from that perspective, and recognize the honesty of the author as a starting point.) Ethnocentrism is routinely condemned by many, but at it's basis is the belief that one's own cultural view and manner of life is "the best for me", and without that belief, no culture will survive. I'm not talking about an attitude that says that no other culture (or world view) has value, or that it is not also the "best for people of that culture".
[Religion is of course a part of culture and world view, and Christianity recognizes that it is no only the best for me, but that it is the only good one for anyone, regardless of other cultural differences. In that sense, as followers of Jesus, we must be "religeocentric", or we are untrue to God's truth as revealed to us in his Son, as expressed in the Scriptures.]
I want to be clear that I am not talking about "wokeness" here (at least as I understand it), which to me is an attempt to take on the cultural bias of another cultural group, and claim to have that as one's own starting point, or reference of thought. That sort of thing is not required in order to recognize the value and legitimacy of another's cultural viewpoint, and to me, it simply comes across as a sort of paternalism, putting forward the idea that the person from the other cultural world view can never be wrong. I have seen this is in some fellow missionaries' responses to national coworkers (in our work in Brazil), and more tellingly, I have heard those very national coworkers express frustration over that "favor". To be recognized as 'equal' means that I will receive the same push-back from those of another cultural group as that person would give to one of their own.

[JimFoxvog]

If they avoid opinion, how would anyone know they are very conservative or very liberal?

By what they focus on. No one can investigate or print everything. Because of the Washington Post, residents of Washington DC knew a lot about the Watergate break-in before Nixon's reelection. Much of the rest of the country didn't because conservative papers didn't run the story.

[barnhart]

I like the Marketwatch graph, probably because it confirms my own bias. Here is a question about it, why are the organizations that are heavy on fact as opposed to opinion clustered in the middle. It seems conceivable there might be a very conservative source, far to the right, or a very liberal source to the left, whose focus is primarily factual reporting and avoids opinion.

But wouldn't a heavy emphasis on fact and journalism ethics get in the way of their agendas?

Suppose a new source wished to turn popular opinion against immigrants, they could constantly run stories about crimes committed by immigrants with no context about the crime rates as compared to other segments of the population. Or focus on immigrants who struggle to find adequate employment or housing, without context.

[Bootstrap]

I like the Marketwatch graph, probably because it confirms my own bias. Here is a question about it, why are the organizations that are heavy on fact as opposed to opinion clustered in the middle. It seems conceivable there might be a very conservative source, far to the right, or a very liberal source to the left, whose focus is primarily factual reporting and avoids opinion.

But wouldn't a heavy emphasis on fact and journalism ethics get in the way of their agendas?

Suppose a new source wished to turn popular opinion against immigrants, they could constantly run stories about crimes committed by immigrants with no context about the crime rates as compared to other segments of the population. Or focus on immigrants who struggle to find adequate employment or housing, without context.

Sure. And another source could show that same graph and also add lines that show how that relates to the rest of the population. Or describe the same thing in context. If people are using the reasonable part of their minds, looking at things calmly without enmity or "us" versus "them" games, they can compare one source to another and come up with reasonable conclusions.

Reflective is a good place to be if you want to be reasonable and think rationally. You need multiple perspectives and ways to compare them. Listening to intelligent conversations on the topic between people who disagree and respect each other really helps.

[Bootstrap]

I think that a first step in achieving objectivity/fairness to the facts is to be self-aware.

Absolutely. Good journalists think about ethics, good publications have codes of ethics, good editors have standards for the level of proof required before something is published and take time to make sure that the major points of view are represented.

This is why sources like Vox spend lots of time thinking about Trump voters and whether they are being fair to them, reflecting on their own biases and whether they are being fair in light of these biases, etc. This is a recurring theme in the Ezra Klein podcast.

I don't think I have ever heard a segment on Fox or Hannity or Limbaugh or Beck where they reflect on these things.

[Robert]

I don't think I have ever heard a segment on Fox or Hannity or Limbaugh or Beck where they reflect on these things.

Then you only watch the commentators and not the straight news people like Bret Bier. You seem to always ignore the reality that Fox News has two purposes. One is straight news and the other is commentary. I do not really like the commentary shows. They are way too weighted and political even for me. I do like the straight news side. They do a good job of being balanced. Much more balanced than most of the main stream media out there.

Warning: There is some crude language.
[video][/video]