When reporting the news, should a distinction be made between passive and objective reoprting?

In Journalism we reported the news without opinion or bias, objective reporting, allowing the reader to see the facts and form their own opinion.

What’s “objective reporting”?

I don’t believe this is a thing. What would it look like, and would it even be desirable?

@notnotnotnot To maintain objectivity in journalism, journalists should present the facts whether or not they like or agree with those facts. Objective reporting is meant to portray issues and events in a neutral and unbiased manner, regardless of the writers opinion or personal beliefs.-Wiki

This is what I was taught in all my Journalism classes. No spin or bias allowed at all.

^ I just don’t think that’s possible or desirable.

What would it even look like? The decision to report on something and not something else, what is considered relevant facts, the inclusion or exclusion of context, what that context might look like, etc. I can’t even fathom what “objective reporting” would look like in reality.

I believe the concept of “objective reporting” is harmful.

with a groan, I’ll see about removing the question.

I don’t think they’d recognize the difference!!!

I have seen Canadian news channels report the news in an objective unbiased form ,but I haven’t seen it reported that way from an American news channel in a very long time , American channels seem to put a very right or left wing spin on it.

As for your question,does that distinction fall on the viewers responsibility or the broadcasters??

I can’t even defend our press for they have gotten to where they feel that there is ONLY one side & it’s the way THEY see it!!! I prefer to think for myself. Right now there is way too much crap on the left & way too much crap on the right. By the time I’ve waded through all the crap, I’ve forgotten what it was that I was researching!!!

It would be nice if there was some sort of clarification, but I’m not even sure it’s possible.

I remember Obermann getting fired for staying his opinion about something political, and the network said that their journalists can’t do that, and he said he didn’t believe he was a journalist. Something like that. Do you remember it? That his show on politics was obviously biased and he was more of a commentator and host than anything.

I don’t remember it exactly.

You can make the distinction between objective news reporting and editoralizing, but most people don’t know the difference and don’t care.

@stanleybmanly A distinction needs to be made between the factual/true and the lie.

But as we see, one man’s truth…,

@Darth_Algar Facts minus any spin or conjecture or opinion. It’s not difficult.

^ The selection of “facts” is itself an editorial decision.

@notnotnotnot I’m not sure I believe that, after three years of journalism. Can you give me an example?(not fake news please.)

Fact:
The U.S. labor market was firing on all cylinders in May: the unemployment rate fell to an 18-year low, employers added jobs at a faster pace and wages modestly improved.

@KNOWITALL: “I’m not sure I believe that, after three years of journalism. Can you give me an example?(not fake news please.)”

I’m going to have to even further, as I have above. I do not believe that “objective reporting” is possible (even theoretically), nor is it desirable. It’s a myth that is useful to power.

@KNOWITALL: “Fact:
The U.S. labor market was firing on all cylinders in May: the unemployment rate fell to an 18-year low, employers added jobs at a faster pace and wages modestly improved”

There are some major issues with seeing this as “objective reporting”....

- “Firing on all cylinders” is a value statement, stating that the way to measure a labor market is by employment rate. It’s ignoring arguably the most important measures, such as wages. If wages didn’t keep pace, then certainly some of the cylinders are not firing.
– How did you decide to report this vs something else?
– This “fact” doesn’t describe what employment/unemployment rates even mean. Context isn’t superfluous here – it’s necessary.

And most importantly, facts are not things that just trickle into your field of view. They are placed there or sought out. These actions, by an individual, require that a whole host of beliefs about the world, values, ,etc come into play. To make things worse, when you include the way media works (corporate control, etc), the reporting of simple “facts” removes anything we can consider “objective”.

The larger effect of concentrated power of media and what is considered news-worthy, and what are “facts” means that we should be wary of claims of objectivity. It’s impossible.

@KNOWITALL Don’t pass too quickly over NOT’s comment on the selection of WHAT is to be covered as as great opportunity for bias. Your bright chamber of commerce version of the booming econcomy would make interesting audio if the visuals consisted of footage of the expanding acres of homeless camps infesting our cities. Just consider what is considered newsworthy at FOX and switch over to NBC. And when the topic is too glaring to be ignored by either, the bias is clear and undeniable. Not has a legitimate point.

@stanleybmanly I do get that, and back in school 20 plus years ago, the world was not in the place it is now.

@notnotnotnot Good points, I’ll have to research further with modern definitions…lol

@KNOWITALL

Did you even comprehend my post at all?