So, I read a pretty interesting blog today. It concerned the objectivity of journalists in the web 2.0 world and, this is the most interesting part so pay attention, how important (or non important) objectivity really is.
How about an equation?
Objectivity =/= Subjectivity.
Seems pretty straightforward, right? Well, this blog does not think so. In fact, this blogger basically equates objectivity to subjectivity inasmuch that readers want, NEED, subjectivity in their news stories and articles.
Let's face it-when we read an article, we know we are getting a biased opinion. Whether it's through Fox News or MSNBC, Time (which I will give props to for at least attempting to remain unbiased) or the New York Post, we read articles as much for the "need for narrative" as we do for the hard facts. I'd hazard a guess that gossip mags sell more than any newspaper. And why is that?
Because people love sensationalism. They crave it.
So, bringing this back to the originial point (and how this relates to Web 2.0.) A memo from the Washington Post (leaked, of course) told all journalists on staff that it was OK to have an objective point of view, to be human basically, but not to let in interfere (noticeably) with their articles in research.
Wut?
It is impossible to not have a bias. It is almost as impossible to hide that bias. And that is what this blogger is saying. That the transparency of objectivity is an OK thing. We all know journalists have bias, and that's just fine with us.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Colin: I love the link to the blog about the Washington Post's memo about social media. And I think the idea of subjectivity and objectivity is an age-old debate in journalism. It's a debate that continues to be had in the face of today's newest technology. You are doing a good job exploring these issues and discovering what's going on in this area.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I think your entry misstates the exact intention of the memo from the Washington Post. The memo deals with reporters' use of "individual accounts on online social networks, when used for reporting and for personal use." That means things like Facebook, Twitter, etc. As you know, journalists are using such things in a variety of ways: to conduct research, supplement content from the regular news site, and to promote their own content. This is a significant way in which journalism is changing. No more is it simply a reporter writing something that gets "published" on newsprint once a day. There are so many other ways to "publish" individually. There are still newspaper sites like the Washington Post, but now reporters also have strong online presences.
By the way, that link to the memo is technically a blog, not the actual Washington Post. It may be a blog worth reading regularly. Your links should also accurately reflect where they are pointing to.
Keep up the good thinking and writing.
Colin: I found a blog you might be interested in checking out.
ReplyDeletehttp://mashable.com
Here's an entry in a NY Times military blog that deals with soldiers and the military's acceptable use policy for social networking sites. Like the journalists, the military has guidelines for its soldiers.
Also, another place you might find resources is the site delicious.com. It's a site where people can share their bookmarks (another example of web 2.0) and is often a good place to do a search. Each time you save a bookmark, you categorize it with a tag, which helps if you are looking for something. Here's a search I did. http://delicious.com/search?p=web+2.0&chk=&context=userposts|millerbhs&fr=del_icio_us&lc=
Just some thoughts. Keep up the good work. I enjoy reading your writing.