Comments on: The Myth of Objective Journalism

By: How Close is too Close? | Tomorrow's Writing Yesterday's News

How Close is too Close? | Tomorrow's Writing Yesterday's News — Tue, 08 Mar 2011 19:54:05 +0000

[...] activity, along with the reading, what we have learned in class an what I have read online have helped me come to understand the need to not become attached to stories that I am working on [...]

By: Rachel

Rachel — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 15:33:51 +0000

I just found your blog via Magnolia's FF. Good post – I thought the Weigal fiasco was pretty ridiculous. He's a fairly talented guy, and I definitely enjoyed his work at Reason. This idea that journalists should not, or do not have strong views is absurd – if he cared enough about politics to make a career in writing about it, you'd think that that would be a hint that he MIGHT have an opinion about some things? Just a few?

By: Tweets that mention The Myth of Objective Journalism | alexpriest.com -- Topsy.com

Sun, 27 Jun 2010 04:16:05 +0000

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Alex Priest and Alex Priest, Stephanie Chan . Stephanie Chan said: RT @alexpriest: The myth of objective #journalism: http://j.mp/bzQzYN #daveweigel [...]

By: Seth

Seth — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 15:47:17 +0000

I'm a realist and never expected the Post to ratify my views. I just think if they're going to have an evangelist cover the Left, they should make every effort to have as formidable and knowledgeable person on the Right as well. I never had a big issue with anything Weigel wrote, but I don't think the Post was encouraging him to be anymore friendly to conservatives or Tea Party people. Yes, reporters have feelings and opinions too, but at some point that can be a problem when they cover people/subjects. As long as they're willing to explain why say, a conservative is pushing this or that agenda, instead of saying they're pushing it but hey, don't listen to them they're wrong, I think it would be fine. They don't need to make it seem that they agree with the people they cover, but they shouldn't make up the reader's mind. That's my two cents at least.

By: Seth

Seth — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 15:28:19 +0000

As a strong conservative, I was surprised Weigel's resignation was accepted. I of course never thought of him as a conservative. He voted for Ron Paul, who while having some good points, had no business being President. After reading people's reactions and considering my opinion, I think Weigel's biggest offense wasn't cussing or making derogatory remarks. Those didn't help for sure. But what made him and the Post look bad were comments suggesting journalists were going to have to cover events a certain way, to advance the narrative they thought we should absorb. The biggest example was Scott Brown's election. He said we have to stress that this is all because Martha Coakley was a bad candidate, etc. Not because people didn't like ObamaCare, even in Massachusetts. No, no, it's all because the chick the Dems nominated just couldn't cut it. As a Democrat running in Massachusetts. Now, this isn't a huge thing in the grand scheme of things, but it shows a desire to have an event be viewed one way, regardless of what may actually be occurring among voters.