Thanks again to Pacifica in Exile and Tracy: “Let me help you out, Kevin. What you are saying is not what journalism experts actually think.
The Times’s problem, Jarvis said, is that manufacturing conversation by ensuring different viewpoints are heard,, is overly simplistic and does a disservice to the newspaper’s readers.
“Again, what is The New York Times’ north star?,” Jarvis said. “Neutrality is a myth. Journalism cannot be objective but we must be transparent. We get in trouble all the time when we try to chase the god of objectivity to balance neutrality. I think that’s what happened at The Times.”
“We’ve seen too many journalists confuse not taking sides with not calling out liars and frauds,” says MIT researcher and author.
The report found that several BBC shows fell victim to an “over-rigid application of editorial guidelines on impartiality,” resulting in far too much airtime for climate change deniers. A follow-up report published in 2014 concluded that this key conclusion “still resonates today”.
This situation, known as false balance, arises when journalists present opposing view-points as being more equal than the evidence allows. But when the evidence for a position is virtually incontrovertible, it is profoundly mistaken to treat a conflicting view as equal and opposite by default
Allowing storytellers to center a perspective in news is not new, and in fact was commonplace in a great deal of news reporting throughout the 18th and early 19th centuries. The Muckrakers who exposed corruption in government, the work of Ida B. Wells-Barnett, which exposed the horrors of lynchings in America, these were not objective narratives. Wells-Barnett was not out to show some balanced perspective on why Black people were being murdered in the South without justification.
What are some of the problems that arise with both-sides reporting?
First, as mentioned, it centers perspective as opposed to truth telling. That in turn leads to the elevation of absurd ideas for the sake of balance, which is what we call the creation of false equivalencies.
On Sun, May 30, 2021 at 8:19 PM Kevin White <email@example.com> wrote:
Have your ever asked a supporter of New Day Pacifica a single question? You seem to just continually publish your own unsubstantiated opinions like some like some old political party hack. Let me teach you journalism. You’re opinion isn’t the story. The people and the happening are the story. Please ask both sides or just shut up.
On Sunday, May 30, 2021, 9:56:04 PM CDT, Ann Garrison <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Kevin, there’s no one I’d rather see endorsing New Day Pacifica.
On Sun, May 30, 2021 at 6:57 PM Kevin White <email@example.com> wrote:
Do you support New Day Pacifice? I do. I consider them them the real path out of this nonsense. Please streamline our governance.
On Sunday, May 30, 2021, 8:11:28 PM CDT, Pacifica Democracy Project <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: