The Sanctity of "FAIR AND BALANCED"

I don't know about you, but one of the things that drives me up the wall like none other is the seeming GOLDEN RULE of journalism lately - that one must always, under all circumstances, be neutral (or in the parlance of the times, fair and balanced.

This rule leads to headlines like Abramoff Convicted:  Both Parties Accepted His Money

I just saw a great clip on crooksandliars that shows how some journalists are mortally afraid of actually criticizing a politician or a particular party (especially Bush):  

An interview of Lou Dobbs by Lesley Stahl.

Seriously, take a look.  It really shows the mindset of the "neutrality above truth" crowd.

Quasi-Transcript below...

He admits he is not a fan of President George W. Bush. "Whether it’s outsourcing, the war in Iraq, just disregard for our middle class...," Dobbs says.

"I'm sitting here saying to myself, 'This man runs a news show? ... And you can just tell me you don’t like the president. Woo," Stahl remarks.

"I, matter of fact, insist that the audience know where I come from," Dobbs says.

"What about fair and balanced?" Stahl asks.

"I've never, Lesley, found the truth to be fair and balanced. I’ve found it to be...," Dobbs remarks.

"But, that’s, but wait, what’s the definition of 'journalism?' That that’s in there. That has to be part of what a journalist is, is fair and balanced," Stahl remarks.

"I truly believe there’s a non-partisan, independent reality," Dobbs says.

"But, it’s your reality," Stahl remarks.

"It is my reality," Dobbs acknowledges.

"But, it’s not 'the' reality," Stahl says.

"Well, how so?" Dobbs says.

"It's not 'the' reality"... uh, wouldn't that be your reality, Lesley?  Okay, just checking.

So if you criticize the president then you're not a Real Journalist?  I guess Mrs. Stahl must not think Olbermann is a journalist.  Or Helen Thomas, for that matter.

•  Neutrality Means Never Having to Inject Opinion

  into reporting.

  "Opinion" means "fact-checking."

  This has been a cornerstone of conservative media messaging for 30+ years.

  by Gooserock on Mon May 07, 2007 at 11:09:30 PM PDT

  •  actually, that's not quite right.

    Neutrality means disregarding the value of truth. Journalism no longer provides you with the facts of situation. What they provide you with is the opinions of the various parties involved. And because they are presenting us with the opinions of the parties involved, and since that reflects their current understanding of dispassionate reporting, then they don't have to fact check. Because facts could disprove someone's opinion and that would result in bias.

    by lorelynn on Mon May 07, 2007 at 11:13:13 PM PDT

    •  That's exactly right

      That's what I was trying to get at:  they provide you with the opinions of both sides, and call it a day.

      Well I hate to break it to 'em, but that's not journalism!

      Sigh.

      by Benjaminwise on Mon May 07, 2007 at 11:19:50 PM PDT

•  Even facts are subjective

  Lesley Stahl should take a minute to think about that.

  And everyone needs to know this. Stahl cannot be so naive as to think journalism, as she apparently sees it, is free of bias. Is the news written and reported by humans or robots?

  by rovertheoctopus on Mon May 07, 2007 at 11:09:37 PM PDT

  •  Reality has a liberal bias,

    Remember who said that?

    by el maso on Tue May 08, 2007 at 05:35:27 AM PDT

    •  Reality has a liberal bias needs to be a bumper

      sticker.  It's way cool.

      by Cassandra77 on Tue May 08, 2007 at 05:42:07 AM PDT

      •  Right on...n/t.

        by el maso on Tue May 08, 2007 at 05:55:45 AM PDT

•  Truth has no intrinsic value on the right.

  That's the problem. Opinion matters. Truth doesn't. And if opinion trumps truth, then Fox is, indeed, fair and balanced.

  by lorelynn on Mon May 07, 2007 at 11:09:42 PM PDT

•  how can you watch that stuff?

  It's just stupid. Gravity, but that's only YOUR reality!  You decide!

  by yet another liberal on Mon May 07, 2007 at 11:12:14 PM PDT

  •  Haha

    "The New Gravity Debate:  Republicans Say Objects Fall Upward, Democrats Claim They Fall Toward Earth"

    This debate could rage on for years... We Report, You Decide.

    by Benjaminwise on Mon May 07, 2007 at 11:23:13 PM PDT

    •  gravity

      is only a theory

      by debedb on Tue May 08, 2007 at 12:56:21 AM PDT

•  Join us for more coverage

  Of America at War.
  You can't just sit there and say you don't like the president.  That's not journalism under Bush!  Are you crazy?  He can get you fired!

  by yet another liberal on Mon May 07, 2007 at 11:14:45 PM PDT

  •  wasn't she so

    incredulous when he said that??  She was almost speechless!  "But, but, he's The Decider!"

    by Benjaminwise on Mon May 07, 2007 at 11:24:26 PM PDT

    •  she wasn't speechless, I don't think

      I think she was laughing at him.  She was saying 'what an outrageous idea, you could just state your bias, that's not journalism.'

      And before that, it was nothing but stereotypes.  "He's for abortion rights, but against gun control."

      It drives me nuts.  It's why I don't watch TV.

      by yet another liberal on Mon May 07, 2007 at 11:34:43 PM PDT

      •  Great point

        What you mentioned about the stereotypes was also picked up by Sirota (linked in Master94's comment below).

        Everyone has a bias...

        by Benjaminwise on Mon May 07, 2007 at 11:39:27 PM PDT

•  As a former reporter...

  I can tell you everything is subjective. From which sources are interviewed, to what fact or quote leads a story. It's all a decision made by a person based on what they've learned and what is their previous experience. Stahl probably interviewed Dobbs for a couple of hours and 10 minutes makes the show. How was that decision made? It was made by people who have innate biases and preconceived notions.

  Check out Sirota's post on the subject, it's damn good.

  by master94 on Mon May 07, 2007 at 11:31:22 PM PDT

  •  Wow

    Thanks for that inside perspective.  That is a good point - everything is subjective, in some sense.  The thing about people like Olbermann is that I believe he would criticize a Democratic administration if they screwed up, and rightfully so.  But he knows that the "he said, she said" reporting is not really accurate.

    by Benjaminwise on Mon May 07, 2007 at 11:34:05 PM PDT

  •  The other big factor

    is what the higher ups at the paper want a reporter to write.

    No sense getting in trouble taking a stand when the parent corp, needs an approval from the Bush SEC or FCC.

    Attitudes will slowly change as we get closer to 2009.  If we get strong Dem Adm. and Congress, the Reps. in Congress won't be able to play to the basic proclivity of business to support the Rep. party as they did under Clinton.  

    That's what it will take to get an accountable press.  However, Koz, TPM, The Last Hurrah, Huff etc. have done such a good job, there might not be much left of the MSMNews before those attitudes change.

    by inHI on Mon May 07, 2007 at 11:45:01 PM PDT

    •  Right

      The objectivity of the news organizations themselves is not absolute, as you so clearly point out.

      by Benjaminwise on Mon May 07, 2007 at 11:54:30 PM PDT

•  Tony Snow is a perfect example, alonng with...

  Dana Perino, of "Fair and Balanced".  (Opps... I forget that Snow is no longer a journalist rather than a 'talking head', if he ever was one.  I empthasize with his battle against cancer, but that does not change the fact that he is the the pair of lips that move when GWB speaks out of his rectum.)

  by wgard on Mon May 07, 2007 at 11:42:45 PM PDT

•  I saw 60 Min last night and was thinking

  the same thing!  I was thinking that Leslie Stahl doesn't appear to know what journalism is.  

  by diana04 on Mon May 07, 2007 at 11:59:04 PM PDT

•  fair and balanced

  Somebody around here, I think, observed that 'fair and balanced' means inviting a representative of Flat Earth Society to provide a perspective on the latest NASA launch.

  And by the way... It's insidious... It's a goddamn corporate slogan, which they've made into a virtue... What about fair and balanced? Well, what about your way right away?

  by debedb on Tue May 08, 2007 at 12:59:31 AM PDT

•  Fair and Balanced My Ass!

  Dobbs, Olbermann and Helen Thomas are not straight news journalists who are expected to just report a story and use the facts only please.  Dobbs and Olbermann are TV commentators who have to be honest and don't have to be fair. Thomas is primarily a columist. She's expected to air her personal views in print. Honest yes. Fair? She doesn't have to care whether she's fair or not.

  It's amazing that Stahl pounded Dobbs on this fair and balanced thing. That's like asking that old firebrand Mike Wallace the same question. Really funny.

  by Steamboater on Tue May 08, 2007 at 04:40:35 AM PDT

•  It goes beyond "he said, she said,"

  Steno journalism is only a small part of what's wrong with the media today. Faux News for example is "advocacy" journalism. Their definition of "fair and balanced" is One liberal(and a weak one at that), counter-balanced by three conservatives. That's just one insidious way they make the majority opinion (Liberal) look like the minority opinion. Because they do have at least one liberal on a panel, they can say it is "balanced." I could go on and on. Thanks for the post. We can't talk about the poor state of journalism enough. Recommended.

  by el maso on Tue May 08, 2007 at 05:54:48 AM PDT

•  non-partisan reality?

  they wouldn't know anything about it..  isn't it hard to see through the bubble, when you are inside it?

  by hypersphere01 on Tue May 08, 2007 at 07:29:16 AM PDT