Alex Priest » washingtonpost

The Myth of Objective Journalism

Alex Priest — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 14:56:06 +0000

Yea, you read that right. The myth.

For those of you who haven’t heard, Dave Weigel is human, with thoughts, emotions, and feelings, like most of the rest of us.

Let me explain. Until yesterday, Dave Weigel was the Washington Post blogger covering the conservative movement. One caveat: he’s not all that conservative. Does that make him a bad blogger? A poor journalist? No. Does it mean he might not have been the best person for the job? Maybe. But that’s missing the larger point here.

The point is that our media is fundamentally flawed. Journalism in the 21st century is facing overwhelming forces, and yesterday’s fiasco at the Washington Post only underscores the futility of trying to fight them. The idea of objective journalism is a myth, for three reasons:

News moves faster than people.

“Unbiased journalism” is no longer a unique selling point, nor one that consumers are willing to pay for.

Journalists have opinions, and hiding them only misleads the public, preventing them from properly interpreting the news they read, hear, and watch.

News moves faster than people.

In the 1990s we saw the advent of the 24/7 news cycle, as dedicated cable news channels like CNN and Fox News Channel emerged on the scene. Little did they know, the media was only witnessing the beginning of a rapidly accelerating news cycle, one that has now accelerated far out of their control.

Today we have social media. Social media doesn’t drive the news cycle–events drive the news cycle. But social media has placed the control of the news cycle squarely in the hands of the information consumers themselves, leaving television and newspapers struggling to keep up.

Lost amidst the battle between corporate media conglomerates and the “little guy” citizen journalists, of course, are the paid, professional journalists. These journalists are overworked, underpaid, underappreciated, and forced to hold themselves to outrageous and unrealistic standards of “objectivity”–standards that are simply impossible to live up to the 21st century hyper news cycle.

“Unbiased journalism” is no longer a unique selling point, nor one that consumers are willing to pay for.

In case you haven’t noticed, newspapers are dying. There’s lots of theories as to why they’re dying, and likely more than one accurate explanation. I tend to favor the Strategic Dissonance Model, created by former Intel CEO Andy Grove.

The model, above, basically states that at a recent point in history there was an inflection point in the business of information. As consumers of information and new media–i.e. blogs, social media, etc.–moved one direction, progressing towards an open, generally opinion-based, consumer-generated style of news, old media regressed toward a more closed, more staunchly “objective” style. This, in turn, created a dissonance gap between the two, resulting in old media’s decline and new media’s rapid success.

My point here is that consumer’s dont give a shit about objectivity. Not only do they not care, but they sure as hell don’t care enough to pay for it. The only people subscribing to old media today are people who either a) just like the feel of the newspaper, or b) rely on very factual, researched articles for research of their own.

Journalists have opinions, and hiding them only misleads the public, preventing them from properly interpreting the news they read, hear, and watch.

Finally, the obvious point. Journalists do have opinions. That is an obvious fact, and one that every single person on earth should know. If you think that journalists are robots and have no opinions, don’t agree or disagree with politicians, and don’t feel certain ways on certain issues, then you clearly don’t understand the way the world works.

So here’s the situation. We have a hyperspeed news cycle that is out of corporate media’s control, consumer’s that don’t care about unbiased journalism yet business models still founded on selling it, and journalists with opinions working for businesses that refuse to acknowledge their humanity.

See any problems there?

Not only is this a fundamentally flawed system, but this misleads news consumers. When you read an article on the Huffington Post, you know that it’s going to have a liberal bias. When you watch MSNBC you know it’s got a liberal slant. And when you watch Fox News they make no efforts to hide their conservative bias. These media organizations are some of the few in the world that are being (relatively) honest with their consumers.

The ones claiming objectivity are lying to you. I’m looking at you, Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and, for that matter, the AP, NBC, ABC, CNN, and any number of other organizations. Each of these organizations has biased journalists, producing biased work, yet they insist over and over that they are objective and unbiased. When relatively uninformed readers and watchers consume this content, they interpret it as objective. Informed and experienced information consumers recognize the political bias inherent in these organizations and journalists and interpret it as such, taking in the actual facts and the rest with a grain of salt (as it should be).

In other words (and thanks for sticking around through this long entry), Dave Weigel should never have been fired, and journalists should never feel the need to keep their personal opinions and bias secret from the public.

Think about it. How can we change this? What will it take to convince traditional media that they are simply going about the business of news the wrong way?

Sound off in the comments or tweet at me. And don’t forget to retweet and “like” this post on Facebook using the links below.

From the Pages of the “Old Media”

Alex Priest — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 22:56:02 +0000

AKA The Washington Post. This morning a number of articles caught my eye. Instead of posting them all through successive Twitter posts, I figured I’d list them here for you to check out if you’re interested. Even now, the newspaper provides value for me. It doesn’t come anywhere near the essential role that the Internet plays in my news-gathering, info-centric life, but I still enjoy picking it up and flipping through the pages in the morning, sometimes there’s some hidden gems to be found that don’t make it onto Twitter.

“Web sites let online lives outlast the dearly departed” – This one caught my eye just because I’ve heard of this before. It’s a unique form of “social” media (in the most indirect sense, I suppose) that uses technology to fulfill a role that was previously complex, often messy, and never enjoyable. This doesn’t necessarily make the process any easier emotionally for those losing loved ones, but it should make it easier in a logistical sense.

“D.C. auto show gets higher profile this year” – This interests me just because I like cars. Also, it’ll be interesting to see how much media coverage this gets when it starts on Wednesday. Will it actually be as big of a deal as the Post says it will be, because of the auto bailouts? Or will it be mostly overlooked, as the D.C. auto show often is? I might try to go by on Saturday if I have time.

“The Internet war” – This editorial lays out the situation right now between the U.S. and China re: Internet freedom. I think this is a great, great thing and I hope the Obama administration continues to pursue it heavily. The open nature of the Internet in the United States has, in my opinion, brought us closer to a full democracy (an almost unattainable concept, really) than anything in history. China is obviously not a democracy, but open Internet could be a step in the right direction for it’s still-repressed over 1.3 billion citizens.

Horoscopes - I’ll be honest I’ve always gotten a kick out of horoscopes; I’m not really a believer, but they’re fun, anyway. Today’s print horoscope (for some reason they are different online, so no link for this one), seemed especially fitting for today: “You have so much work to do and no clue how you’re going to be able to accomplish it all. The answer is in using your support system. That’s what it’s there for, and loved ones will be eager to help.” Some context–today I ‘ve been to the Social Media Club DC breakfast, had five class (one block), one meeting with the AU Web Communications Manager, one meeting with a professor, written two blog entries, and I have an eco-sense meeting this evening. All while tweeting (naturally). But it’s been a fantastic day.

That’s all for now, folks.

Interning in DC – The Washington Post Lays It Out

Alex Priest — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 06:32:12 +0000

The Washington Post had a great little article today titled “Homework and persistence can open up a world of internships”. It’s very true.

A few key quotes (links are mine):

Finding and landing an internship is a lot like finding a job; it requires a lot of research, persistence and networking. “The earlier you start, the better — the more choices you have,” said Mary Ryan, president of the Washington Internship Institute, which runs area internship programs for smaller universities.

Students, start at your college or university career center to identify resources and key dates. “If you’re on the career services director’s radar,” you’re at the forefront when opportunities open up, said Yazad Dalal…

Looking for internships in DC creates sort of a love/hate relationship between the student and the process. One one hand, there are a lot of internships to be found here in the District. Every single department of the government has them, along with every nonprofit, lawyer, lobbyist, public relations agency and financial firm in town. But it is competitive, make no mistake.

Last Spring I applied for over 40 internships. I heard back from three of them. That’s about the kind of response rate you can expect, generally (unless you’re just really lucky). Thankfully, all the internships I have landed have been absolutely amazing, but I’m probably considered one of the lucky ones.

But the article is right, too–just keep working hard and hunting them down, and you’ll get it. It’s really more a matter of effort than luck. For what it’s worth, I’ve posted the resources The Washington Post referenced in their article below (since they didn’t bother linking to them on their online version of the article), as well as a few resources I personally recommend (which I think are better, too). Good luck internship-hunting!

From the Washington Post
DCinternNet.com
“Vault Guide to Top Internships” ($14.95 PDF download)
“College Students: Do This! Get Hired!” by Mark Lyden ($16.00 on Amazon)
“Washington Internships: How to Get Them and Use Them to Launch Your Public Policy Career” by Deirdre Martinez ($13.57 on Amazon) From Me (these are all FREE)
One Day, One Internship
DC Public Affairs and Communication Jobs (often lists internships)
the AU Career Center blog
Lindsey Pollak: Generation Y Workplace and Career Expert (she’s really nice, met in person)

Quit Pissing Off the Press, Gibbs

Alex Priest — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 13:27:06 +0000

Seriously, Mr. Press Secretary, just stop it. It’s not helping your cause at all–not one bit.

The reason for this sudden post this morning is simple: I’ve come to the sudden–perhaps far too late–realization that the press is genuinely pissed off with the Obama administration. They aren’t upset about the policies (indeed, most journalists lean left, and probably support most of them wholeheartedly), they don’t mind Obama himself (he’s a likeable enough fellow), and I’m sure the work environment down there for the White House press corps is stressful, but pretty hospitable. It ain’t exactly physical labor for minimum wage. But they aren’t happy with his communications team. And given what I’m hearing, I think that’s actually pretty reasonable. It appears Obama is doing a good job controlling his agenda, but his team really isn’t doing a great job communicating it (kind of important, there, guys).

Dana Milbank–who, honestly, I can’t stand, but sometimes makes some relevant points–wrote some shockingly insightful words in his “Washington Sketch” column in this morning’s Washington Post. A select quote from the column:

The Democrats’ failed struggle to hold onto Ted Kennedy’s seat in the liberal state showed how badly the party’s brand had been damaged over the past year. But as the White House press corps challenged President Obama’s press secretary on Tuesday afternoon about the unanticipated loss, Gibbs answered with his usual mix of wisecracks and insults.

Emphasis is mine. That’s not the kind of impression you want to be making on the press. It’s just not. It reminds me of some of the more contentious conflicts in “The West Wing” between CJ Cregg and the fictional Bartlet White House press corps. It usually ends with her getting really upset, the press being outraged, and her working to correct the mistake later on in the episode.

Milbank continues to refer to Gibbs with language like “glib Gibbs gibes”, “the smart-alecky press secretary”, “combative”, and more. Not exactly how I would want to appear in the Washington Post.

There’s no question Robert Gibbs is an outstanding political mind here in Washington. My question–echoed by many others, I believe–is: is he too political? Does he need to chillax a bit? Should he cool it down and give the White House press corps a little more of the respect they undoubtedly deserve?

I think the answer to all those questions is yes. Calm down, Mr. Gibbs. You hear it from Republicans all the time: this isn’t the campaign anymore. Now you can hear it from me, a hardcore Democrat–this isn’t the campaign anymore.