"I'd wager good money that 89% of the journalists in the US would rather eat glass than engage in yellow journalism. The 11% that would, work for the papers and media outlets that get off on that sort of thing."
-Scott
In light of Time Magazine's long-anticipated defection to the join the yellow menace... I raise my assessment to 15%. The bastards.
Posts
13 comments:
To which recent developments are you specifically referring? The use of PhotoShop in a cover photograph? The doctoring of part of the Sacred Canon of the USMC? The prescriptive opinion pieces on environmentalism quasi-masquerading as objective journalism? Or something else I missed?
No matter. I applaud your use of the word "bastards."
The "prescriptive opinion pieces" on any subject whatsoever no matter if I agree with it or not "quasi- masquerading as objective journalism".
"The Yellow Menace"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism
Scott, how is accepting and presenting one's bias up front the same as "scandal-mongering, sensationalism, or other unethical or unprofessional practices by news media organizations or journalists."?
If that is the standard of bad journalism, then many of the so-called professional publications like the NYT or CNN or Fox are yellow.
There is a huge difference between reporting news from a defined viewpoint and intentionally mischaracterized the facts for some unethical end. To lump the former with the latter is to, once again, insinuate that only "trained" journalists are capable of reporting the truth.
I really hope that's not what anyone believes.
Are you trying to put words in my mouth Denny? I never said that, or insinuated it. What a ridiculous notion.
Scott, I was not putting words into anyone's mouth, but asking for a clarification of the cited yellow journalism reference in context with the post and the rest of the comments.
Stop being so sensitive and read what's actually being said in context.
I can and will say the same to you. I insinuated no such thing.
Purposely injecting bias into your coverage as a supposedly reputable news source is inherently "unethical and unprofessional" I don't know how many ways I can find to say that I deplore what Time is doing.
I think we both agree that we disagree, especially on your last point. That's the nature of the entire debate, hence my asking for clarification.
Denny, are you saying you have no problem with what Time did?
"Denny, are you saying you have no problem with what Time did?"
No, I have plenty of problem with what Time did, but at least they did so in such a way that they're not trying to pretend like they didn't. That's why I think their step is faltering rather than sure.
Time and all of the traditional journalism source like it have a huge problem from my point of view in that they have a clear bias but they cannot really afford to make the transition into using it because of their adherence to traditional journalism. If the Time article had been in another publication--let's call it Earth Times--there would be hardly a stink about it and the points the article tries to make, within the bias presented, would be taken for what they are in that context. What I am saying is that I think there should be a lot more Earth Times and a lot less Times in modern reporting.
Gotcha. Ok. That makes sense.
The problem with niche publications like the ones you're advocating is that the general public doesn't read them. They're echo chambers for their constituencies.
The danger of Time deciding to be the voice of unalloyed liberalism - or whatever - is that it will become another niche publication, an echo chamber for the left. And if the trend continues, with each outlet throwing down a partisan gauntlet, the possibility of consensus is out the window..
"The danger of Time deciding to be the voice of unalloyed liberalism - or whatever - is that it will become another niche publication"
Scott, hence the reason I advocate a different approach. I think a publication like Time or Newsweek or the New York Times could present more nuanced reporting in the "citizen journalism" vein if it allowed for editorial balance of that bias. The Time article in question would be entirely different if it was presented in a for/against, pro/con format.
I agree that Time runs the risk of becoming irrelevant if it takes on a particular viewpoint throughout its entire publication. If it allows many viewpoints to be presented, that's another thing entirely.
Post a Comment