OMG I Agree with Nick Denton
by
on May 08, 2008,
And with that title, I may actually end up struck by lightning.
I have a love-hate relationship with the Gawker properties. I find most of the blogs in the network witty and a welcome respite from the constant regurgitation of the same old news items that I end up reading most of the day, but at the same time, as with the CES incident, I do think that they often cross the line.
When it comes down to a slapfest between Nick Denton and Guardian Unlimited, I figured it would be a no-brainer. Denton was probably rabble-rousing for page views and Roy Greenslade was setting him straight, right?
Wrong.
I've said before that while I started out as a Comm/J major, I knew very quickly that the life of a reporter wasn't for me. I'm too opinionated and didn't want to spend my days trying to stifle my opinions as I wrote articles. In blogging, I've found the perfect fit, because I'm EXPECTED to offer my commentary when I'm covering news.
The problem with traditional media is, and has always been, that you can't free reporting completely from bias. You can't even free "history" books from bias. Look at the differences between the U.S. and British accounts of what Americans know as the Revolutionary War and you'll see what I mean. The skew is always there, no matter how objective you attempt to be.
In an age where a newspaper or the nightly newscast might be the only conduit for someone to know what was happening in the world, it made sense to attempt to present one viewpoint in as neutral a way as possible. Time have changed, however, and there is a constant barrage of information from print media as well as network television, cable television, traditional radio, satellite radio, and, of course, the Internet. This is an era where two of the most popular shows on basic cable are news show parodies, and those shows are watched by an educated audience.
I think that Denton is right. Is there anyone left out there who still thinks that Fox News has objective reporting? Why not let reporters, even traditional reporters, state the facts as they know them and then add a bit of commentary? It might engage people by making them feel that they actually had a voice in the news, and weren't having information force-fed them like a goose being fattened for foie gras. And we all know that an engaged audience is often a more loyal one. Media is changing, and the way that people use it is, as well. It makes sense that the way in which news content is created should change along with it.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to profy RSS feed!
major
raj
CopyrightLawSucks 
kwarren84 
Michael Fidler 
Jaime A. Restrepo 
Yolanda
I think there’s a place for both news and analysis, but there’s more of a need than ever for some outlets of unbiased news. Sometimes you need a steady signpost in the turbulent waters of opinion to bring you back to the dry ground of fact. Analysis can get too far removed from fact, and journalists and bloggers LOVE to make the story about themselves (most likely because they didn’t get enough attention from their parents) so it’s important to have an anchor out there to keep the discussion from drifting away.
Questions to ponder:
If everyone wants slanted and pre-analyzed news, why does NPR exist?
If everyone likes a cacophony of voices, why do people pay large sums of money for noise-canceling headphones to filter out the background?
Pre-digested analysis and opinions may be good for some, but some of us prefer to think for ourselves.
Grendel, that’s not true. First of all, the majority of the “news” that’s ON NPR is made up of shows with analysis and people giving opinions! In addition, you don’t think there’s a difference between the news you get on Fox, the news you get on NPR and the news on, say, BBC America? Everything already HAS a slant, it’s just how obvious it is to the consumer.
On NPR news and analysis are clearly delineated. There’s a news segment where it’s just the facts, and there’s segments where they bring people in to give analysis and opinion. Never the twain shall meet.
It’s the same in major newspapers. There’s news, and then there’s the editorial sections. Sure, there’s some bias in news coverage depending on the source. I disagree with the common assertion that it’s a “liberal” bias, as I tend to think that major news organizations are as liberal as the multi-national corporations which own them, but there’s bias.
The difference is, if you let the analysis and bias become part of the story, you’ve got no requirement to be grounded in the truth. That way leads to Rush Limbaugh, and Rush Limbaugh leads to hate… or whatever Yoda said.
CC, i absolutely agree about the wisdom of choosing the blog as your platform of choice to dissiminate what you know. i find it strange that people cling to this quaint idea of a bias free media. Any one who took even some basic courses in sociology, philosophy or film studies, would surely have come across some version of this epistemological conundrum.
ps, thanks for the bk invite and i wouldnt mind one for profy either!