Tuesday, July 20, 2010

A Bit More On the Journolist

My previous post didn't really address the main point of that article about the Journolist, but an old post from GEC pretty much sums up what I think about it:
I've always had a hard time with journalism's pose at fairness. It's a relatively recent thing. Nobody even made the pretension of being neutral in early American newspapers. Now, they cling to the pose. It's not that people can't or don't try to be even-handed in their reporting. But any coherent idea of fairness always comes out of a shared set of real agreements about our moral universe and scale of values. The minute that breaks down, you've got disagreements about what qualifies as equitable in any given situation.

It's no accident that "professional journalism" donned the veil of neutrality when it did at the turn of the 20th century. That's precisely the point at which intellectual opposition to progressivism more or less died. When the educated elites get together -- hell, when any group of like-minded people assemble -- they start to imagine they understand it all, that no [insert your relevant good adjective] sort of people could think differently.

Only a people possessed with the model of Weberian social science, assuming you could distinguish facts and values evenly, would concoct an idea of scrupulously neutral reporting.

Best to just to be completely upfront about the bias. And for the ten millionth time recently, this plays into FLG's arguments about time horizons. The separation of facts and values is a major part of the empirical pretension held by those on the left.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

New story dropping tonight at 12pm at The Daily Caller.

Sounds like it will be a good one...

Mrs. P

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.