LFC2007 wrote:Bad Bob wrote:Interesting you should bring that up, as there is a big debate in the US at the moment regarding the term as it is applied to the media. Check out Leon with his finger on the pulse of critical media studies in the U.S.!
journalists have become virtual 'stenographers' for the right-wing powers that be: dutifully recording the soundbites of Republican politicians and business leaders with no commentary whatsoever on the nature and truthfullness of the material they're writing down.
One journalist put it this way:
"There are not two equal sides to every story, and good reporting is more than just stenography. Neither is anybody 'objective.' What most reporters and editors try to do is make a principled effort to be fair...they bend over backwards to try to be fair, both to individuals and to ideas."
The Link
I know it's off topic slightly but I know what you're referring to. I've heard the phrase 'United States of Stenography' used quite a few times.
It's a highly debatable issue, however, those 'right wing powers that be' and the right wing media will argue the exact opposite to the statement highlighted (unsurprisingly), and it's also a pretty convincing argument backed up by studies etc. Although the objectivity expressed through the interpretation and presentation of those studies is also questionable.
Regarding objectivity in this scenario, I don't think it's as much a case of total objectivity being a myth but rather how that person is perceived. They may have unbiased intent, but are perceived to be biased. It boils down to: How do you determine bias? Ultimately it's a game of perceptions.
Well, bias might not be quite the right word in this context, as it is often considered to be a negative. Perhaps we could use the word perspective instead, as in all journalists have a particular perspective that shapes how they present the stories that they cover and that differs--sometimes minutely, sometimes significantly--from the perspective of someone else covering the same story.
In the case of the Echo, I don't want a "neutral" covering the team, like Wilhelmsson has suggested--I want someone who understands the club, the supporters and the city and who can use those understandings to bring meaningful coverage and analysis to readers. And--again in response to Wilhelmsson--I do think Bascombe had the ability to be critical of the team, the club, the supporters etc. He wasn't one to "always look on the bright side of life." Again, if Barrett can fill those shoes, I'll be happy.
