Liberal Newspaper Chooses Honesty over Fake Objectivity

NewsBusters:

Liberal Newspaper Chooses Honesty over Fake Objectivity

It should hardly be a surprise that a newspaper called the Atlanta Progressive News would be the one to lift the veil of objectivity. But it is nice to see at least one liberal media outlet admit that--in the words of David Axelrod--it has a perspective.
The Progressive News recently fired one of its veteran reporters. The reason given: he was simply too objective, and refused to give the news a liberal bent. Now, the newspaper is openly liberal, so the move wasn't a sacrilege against traditional standards of journalism.
But it was a refreshing departure from the traditional media's self-deception when it comes to reporting the facts. The Progressive News obviously has no illusions about its "perspective," and is not hesitant to share it:
[LEFT]

[quote]At a very fundamental, core level, Springston did not share our vision for a news publication with a progressive perspective. He held on to the notion that there was an objective reality that could be reported objectively, despite the fact that that was not our editorial policy at Atlanta Progressive News. It just wasn’t the right fit...

We believe there is no such thing as objective news. Typically, mainstream media presents itself as objective but is actually skewed towards promoting the corporate agenda of the ultra-wealthy.

One need not agree with the Progressive News's perspective to at least acknowledge the honesty in admitting that the paper is not "objective" in the Old Media I-have-no-opinions sense of the term.
True objectivity in the newsroom is a pipe dream. With a few very rare expections, reporters naturally incorporate their own personal biases into their reporting. Newsrooms should take this fact into account and pursue one of two paths accordingly: either admit to and embrace the outlet's biases as the Progressive News has done, or make a concerted effort to hire an ideologically diverse staff.
[/LEFT]

[/quote]

[LEFT][LEFT]

[/LEFT]

[/LEFT]

It's important to keep in mind that there is a difference between advocacy news sources, like the Progressive News in the article, LifeSiteNews, etc, and traditional professional news sources like say the Washington Times or ABC News. While the latter group's editorial slant may inform what stories or aspects of stories they choose to cover, in any given story they still have the obligation to report on the various perspectives involved.

I'm glad the reporter in question stuck to his professionalism rather than simply collecting the one side of the story the editors wanted to hear.

Digi: That's the whole point of this objective vs. liberal, objective vs. conservative issue. These outlets claim to be objective and simply mean biased towards liberal or conservative. They do not present both streams of information equally. They do not present the information as it is. They bend and distort the facts to fit a point of view.

Check out the life website that shows the reporting on the March for Life. The news media even recycled old photos from the previous year to show that prochoice (pro-abortion) protesters were there. They made it appear that a few "pro-abortion" protesters equalled the more than 300,000 prolife protestors.

I find it interesting that the Progressive News not only rejects the idea that anyone can be objective (there's something to that, but less than many folks think) but "the notion that there is an objective reality".

The editor has received death threats ?] offering to demonstrate objective reality by putting a bullet thru his brain. The "no objective reality" idea has spread pretty widely thru our culture from New Age to literary criticism to historical analysis where everything is "just a story".

Yep. To “progressives,” everything is relative. Which begs the question, was the reporter they fired only relatively objective? :smiley:

[quote="rlg94086, post:5, topic:187798"]
Yep. To "progressives," everything is relative.

[/quote]

That's interesting, because it is among American "conservatives" (I put the term in quotes, because they are not conservative in any true sense) that one finds the idea that there are no such things as just wages and prices, but worth is only determined by the "free market" (contradicting the social thought of Sts. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Thomas More, and others). Or tell a "conservative" that something isn't just, and he's likley to say, "according to whom?".

[quote="Alethiaphile, post:6, topic:187798"]
That's interesting, because it is among American "conservatives" (I put the term in quotes, because they are not conservative in any true sense) that one finds the idea that there are no such things as just wages and prices, but worth is only determined by the "free market" (contradicting the social thought of Sts. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Thomas More, and others). Or tell a "conservative" that something isn't just, and he's likley to say, "according to whom?".

[/quote]

Yes, many "conservatives" do think that way. However, that doesn't negate my statement regarding "progressives" (i.e. everything is relative).

I'm a conservative who does believe in just wages, as the Church teaches. Determining what is "just" is done in different ways though, so I can understand the question "according to whom?" Are you saying that "progressives" don't ask that same question?

Which outlets?

[quote=atassina]Check out the life website that shows the reporting on the March for Life. The news media even recycled old photos from the previous year to show that prochoice (pro-abortion) protesters were there. They made it appear that a few “pro-abortion” protesters equalled the more than 300,000 prolife protestors.
[/quote]

There’s a difference between reporting on an issue and reporting on an event. If it’s an important event, the news organization will want some good pictures and a brief explanation of what’s happening. If it’s an unimportant event, but a slow news day, the organization will even more want good pictures, and if an opposing side is interesting enough, maybe they’ll expand the segment to include some of that. Or maybe they’ll just quote some locals talking about what a beautiful day it is for the march.

But just because the president is giving someone a medal doesn’t mean there’s any good reason to give equal time to antiwar protesters in Lafayette Park. When the tea party protests were underway a few months ago, I’m sure there were counter-protests, but I never saw any on the news. The tea party protests were more than enough story. Similar to your gripe about prolife vs pro-abortion coverage, years ago I knew someone who marched against the Gulf War and was miffed that CNN and the networks gave equal time to reporting on the counter-protest by supporters of the war, even though it was dwarfed by the peace march. A bunch of people marching isn’t really that interesting by itself, but if you can interview people with opposing viewpoints in opposing marches, it’s almost as good as being on a battlefield.

The Church has define “Just” in relation to labor… sufficient for one full time worker to support a family of at least 4.

[quote="Aramis, post:9, topic:187798"]
The Church has define "Just" in relation to labor... sufficient for one full time worker to support a family of at least 4.

[/quote]

Cool. Can you provide a link to that?

BTW...that still leaves open the way to determine what that amount is. What does "support" entail? What size of residence? What education for children? What is a "sufficient" budget?

rlg you are asking the right question. Americans on average think that a "just" wage allows them to have a flat screen TV, 2 cars, a 4 bedroom house, brand-name clothes and eat out at Applebees every week.

I grew up in a household earning 150k plus. We bought everything we could second hand and ate out 2 or 3 times a year. We never had cable TV or nice vacations, but always gave more than our 10%. People need to change their expectations.

[quote="RoncalliM, post:11, topic:187798"]
rlg you are asking the right question. Americans on average think that a "just" wage allows them to have a flat screen TV, 2 cars, a 4 bedroom house, brand-name clothes and eat out at Applebees every week.

I grew up in a household earning 150k plus. We bought everything we could second hand and ate out 2 or 3 times a year. We never had cable TV or nice vacations, but always gave more than our 10%. People need to change their expectations.

[/quote]

Thanks. I've learned the hard way...I wish my expectations had been pre-adjusted. :D

I think that many American “conservatives” (the ones you are talking about, I mean) adhere to classical liberalism, which is the root of our current liberalism, so there’s relativity on both sides.

My “conservative” edges have definitely been worn down by Catholic teaching :slight_smile:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.