Over at CrunchNotes, Michael Arrington talks about objectivity and to some degree transparency within blogging/journalism. I agree with much of what Mike says. I know that the media strive to be objective but true objectivity will never exist. I'm talking about little things that sometime get overlooked. Not because of personal agendas, but because a reporter just can't research and write about every possible aspect of a story. Mike nails it with this quote:
Or here’s the real mind bender - what if I don’t write about a competitor to a company that I like? Doesn’t inaction count as much as action when we’re talking about conflicts? Am I not writing about them because of the company I like, or not writing about them because I just don’t like the service? Should I write about them simply because they are a competitor to a company I wrote something positive about? Some people say yes, absolutely. Well, if I were to do that the blog would get pretty boring pretty quickly.
Visitor Comments
In my humble opinion, anyone who argues that media, blogging, or other forms of communication needs to have transparency and 100% objectivity is selling something. The fact is, someone will always believe one side of a story while another will disagree. There will always be factions....simple as that.
Transparency is a ficticious word used as a facade to hide bits of information which the media or company does not want to leak. In the end, it enables citizens to sleep better believing they know the entire truth of a story.
Why do members of the media need to be 100% objective? People only hear what they feel is necessary or relavent to their own lives. It's a fact of life...accept it for what it is. And its all bullshit.
Posted by: Jeff Putnam | June 2, 2006 9:16 PM
So if neither objectivity nor transparency will ever be reached, should either be something to strive for?
It seems that information in part can just as easily become an enemy as anything else on the outer limits of extremity. So where is the place in the middle where we can be satisfied, or be sufficiently informed? Does such a place exist?
And if we don’t think either can be reached, should we be holding corporations and people to a standard which asks them to be objective or transparent?
Posted by: Anna | June 4, 2006 10:04 PM
Anna:
I think we still strive for it, but readers need to be more aware that just because they are reading it in a paper or anywhere else that it's not the gospel truth.
Posted by: Josh Hallett | June 5, 2006 7:39 AM