Sunday
Aug092009
The Value of Voice
Sunday, August 9, 2009 at 03:11PM
I just finished Jeff Jarvis' book, What Would Google Do? I have so many thoughts about it but one in particular keeps rolling around in my head like a loose marble.
Jarvis says that Google has created a society that values "creation, openness, connections, uniqueness, collaboration, and invention." Can't argue with that. My question involves how that relates to me as a news disseminator: What does this new Googley community want from me? What weight can and should a journalist's voice carry?
Admittedly, I've made mistakes in over-exercising my voice on the Internet. What I want to debate is whether or not they were really mistakes at all.
I am paid to be a reporter. In theory, I am supposed to be inherently unbiased in order to present a message to you, the viewer, and let you draw your own conclusions. But is that even possible? I am reminded of the argument by Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor in her recent hearings: "Life experiences have to influence you. We're not robots."
I've suffered backlash for blog posts, Twitter posts, and statements about my political beliefes on my broadcasts. I have criticized John McCain for not embracing the Internet and technology enough during his campaign. I have expressed confusion about Sarah Palin's resignation speech. I have expressed disappointment in California Proposition 8. As a journalist, do I give up the right to voice those thoughts? If so, for what greater good?
Jarvis calls for "personal political openness." He writes: "I'd like to see citizens use the web as personal political pages in which each of us may, if we choose, reveal our positions, opinions, and allegiances: the Facebook of democracy."
But what of journalists? Can and should we hop on the personal political openness manifesto? And is "unbiased" a fallacy? I may not always admire the stance of Fox News but at least the network is unabashed in its agenda and it succeeds because of that, not in spite of it. Sure they lose some, but the ratings show that they win more.
Molly Wood and I had a conversation about this very subject recently. We are both of the opinion that it is becoming increasingly impossible for journalists to be unbiased. In the digital age when you can choose any flavor of news you want, why would you choose vanilla? Why not choose the conversation that engages you? If you expect to interact with your media, why would you choose to interact with an opinion-less talking head? I wouldn't.
I do worry that a more partisan media will increase conviction bias, a phenomenon in which people ignore ideas and discussions that go against their own pre-established beliefs. It is certainly NOT desirable that we all isolate our own line of thinking but the Internet makes this nearly impossible. We are exposed to more thoughts, arguments, and sides of the coin and perhaps, ideally, this helps us to be more open in our thoughts.
Within the world of technology journalism, I certainly don't play it straight. I am vocal enough about the companies that get under my skin (Verizon FiOS, I'm looking at you!). But the question I crowdsource to you, dear reader, is this: Should it stop there or should we expect openness from ALL of our news disseminators in ALL areas?
In an effort to get the ball rolling, I will go right ahead and opine: I prefer openness. I don't want to keep my mouth shut for the sake of ratings. I know it is a risk, especially because I work for and represent a network. But isn't this what you want from your network? I don't mind a real discussion and I never mind being told that I am wrong. (It happened twice last week. See Thursday's episode of Loaded.) I want to have real discussions without pretending that I don't have ideas about the topics at hand. To heck with unbiased! It is a pretense and an affectation. Why not give open journalisms a beta run!? I think it is in fact what Google would do.
Jarvis says that Google has created a society that values "creation, openness, connections, uniqueness, collaboration, and invention." Can't argue with that. My question involves how that relates to me as a news disseminator: What does this new Googley community want from me? What weight can and should a journalist's voice carry?
Admittedly, I've made mistakes in over-exercising my voice on the Internet. What I want to debate is whether or not they were really mistakes at all.
I am paid to be a reporter. In theory, I am supposed to be inherently unbiased in order to present a message to you, the viewer, and let you draw your own conclusions. But is that even possible? I am reminded of the argument by Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor in her recent hearings: "Life experiences have to influence you. We're not robots."
I've suffered backlash for blog posts, Twitter posts, and statements about my political beliefes on my broadcasts. I have criticized John McCain for not embracing the Internet and technology enough during his campaign. I have expressed confusion about Sarah Palin's resignation speech. I have expressed disappointment in California Proposition 8. As a journalist, do I give up the right to voice those thoughts? If so, for what greater good?
Jarvis calls for "personal political openness." He writes: "I'd like to see citizens use the web as personal political pages in which each of us may, if we choose, reveal our positions, opinions, and allegiances: the Facebook of democracy."
But what of journalists? Can and should we hop on the personal political openness manifesto? And is "unbiased" a fallacy? I may not always admire the stance of Fox News but at least the network is unabashed in its agenda and it succeeds because of that, not in spite of it. Sure they lose some, but the ratings show that they win more.
Molly Wood and I had a conversation about this very subject recently. We are both of the opinion that it is becoming increasingly impossible for journalists to be unbiased. In the digital age when you can choose any flavor of news you want, why would you choose vanilla? Why not choose the conversation that engages you? If you expect to interact with your media, why would you choose to interact with an opinion-less talking head? I wouldn't.
I do worry that a more partisan media will increase conviction bias, a phenomenon in which people ignore ideas and discussions that go against their own pre-established beliefs. It is certainly NOT desirable that we all isolate our own line of thinking but the Internet makes this nearly impossible. We are exposed to more thoughts, arguments, and sides of the coin and perhaps, ideally, this helps us to be more open in our thoughts.
Within the world of technology journalism, I certainly don't play it straight. I am vocal enough about the companies that get under my skin (Verizon FiOS, I'm looking at you!). But the question I crowdsource to you, dear reader, is this: Should it stop there or should we expect openness from ALL of our news disseminators in ALL areas?
In an effort to get the ball rolling, I will go right ahead and opine: I prefer openness. I don't want to keep my mouth shut for the sake of ratings. I know it is a risk, especially because I work for and represent a network. But isn't this what you want from your network? I don't mind a real discussion and I never mind being told that I am wrong. (It happened twice last week. See Thursday's episode of Loaded.) I want to have real discussions without pretending that I don't have ideas about the topics at hand. To heck with unbiased! It is a pretense and an affectation. Why not give open journalisms a beta run!? I think it is in fact what Google would do.
Reader Comments (69)
I prefer that my reporters (you included) report on the facts only, then be given their time at the end for their opinions to be made.
But if one can't report the facts as they are, perhaps reporting as a whole, is just some form of political/religious/state-your-cause-here propaganda.
JMHO
I think the issue here isn't that we are biased or not. As you point out experience influences us and whether or not we call it bias the only problem I see is when a journalist hides or lies connections and biases. As much as I dislike Fox News they are upfront about their evil intentions :)
Excellent blog post with "The Value of Voice". I enjoy listening/watching daily podcasts as part of my routine. I enjoy Loaded and Buzz Out Loud, two I never miss. I have to admit, though, that it is sometimes difficult to listen to BOL when one of the hosts is using the show to promote a personal agenda or complain about a personal experience. Especially when it happens episode after episode. When the subject comes up and you just know that [insert host name here] will complain about it.
I have always been of the opinion that the people bringing me the news should be impartial and present a balanced, unbiased report so I can make up my own mind. That approach has been increasingly difficult in this age of openness and access. As you point out, with Twitter, Facebook, Blogs, etc. we have more information than ever about each "reporters" personal experiences, opinions, and political leanings.
My recommendation is for people like you to feel free to tweet, blog, etc. about those personal experiences, opinions, and political leanings but keep them off of your "professional" obligations. When I watch Loaded I want you to present the news without bias. When I listen to BOL I don't want to hear the same people whining this and that when it happens to relate to a story they are covering. Cover the story and leave it at that
Having said that, it certainly is your prerogative to launch a podcast (or present something like BOL) as a "personal opinion show" about technology. In my mind there is a difference in a BOL that is communicating the "buzz" in the technology world that is different from a BOL that is communicating each persons personal feelings, experiences, complaints, and issues about technology as it relates to them.
At the end of the day you (and others in your profession) need to asses the impact of you going public with your personal views, political leanings, etc. and its affect on your professional career. There is clearly an element of risk there. Can your audience understand your opinion on a very personal, hotly debated issue and separate that from your professional ability to deliver technology news? That is the $64,000 question.
While hard to define, I think that I'd have to trust the journalist to listen to their opinion. I've disagreed with the BOL panel but I respect you guys so it allows for discussion. It also depends on the forum the journalist has. Would Brian Williams be able to give his opinion on the nightly news? Unlikely. However, he's been more open when he's blogged. We are a new generation who will define what interactivity with an audience means. And at least for me, someone in their early 20s, an opinion is welcome and appreciated so long as it's reasonable. Everything has it's place.
It's not longer one-way communication anyway. You're not a robot. And if you have an opinion then you'll hear mine as well.
Why would one choose vanilla?
Because when I want news, I want the actual information. I don't necessarily want commentary. Sure, sometimes I do, but in those cases I tune in to podcasts or read websites that provide commentary. When I want news, however, I want the facts.
This is such a big problem in American society, and very few people seem to get it — we've been trained to stop forming our own opinions and instead rely on being told what to think. The media no longer gives us the news, it tells us what to think and how to feel.
THAT is why it's becoming increasingly difficult for journalists to remain unbiased —unbiased journalism can't compete with emotion-filled reporting. That's just how psychology works. The more dramatic something is, or the stronger an emotion it elicits, the more memorable it becomes and the more impassioned people will feel about it. And, therefore, the more successful it will be within the industry.
I'm not sure the media is to blame here (I'm part of that media myself). Journalists are being steered into this kind of reporting by media corporations, who in turn are being pushed by their audience. I think it's the fault of the audience. People have lost their sense of curiosity and their willingness to think things through for themselves. They've become lazy.
For what it's worth, I'm against this concept of "open journalism," because it's not really journalism — it's commentary. And commentary can be just as beneficial to critical thinking IF the consumer analyzes that commentary rather than just accepting it as truth. But it's a problem when it's called "journalism." Because journalism has always been accepted as truth, this is a dangerous line to blur.
That being said, Natali, I don't think you should keep your mouth shut. I subscribe to your blog's RSS feed, listen to Buzz Out Loud, and watch Loaded, because I enjoy your personal opinions.
I just think it's sad that the line between journalism and commentary has become so blurred.
Well, I, for one, don't mind opinion, when opinion can add value. For instance, Twitter and TechCrunch. That calls for some opinion, and it definitely benefited the story. However, when you start throwing opinion in just to get a rise... that's when you (reporters in general) lose me. I am all for opinions, and in fact, I think opinions help you relate to the people you are watching. The main reason why I love to listen to Buzz Out Loud is because I feel like I'm not just getting news. I'm getting personality as well... which is really refreshing.
Basically, be as open as you'd like, but don't bash, or promote, something just because you can. Also, political and tech related openness are different to me. I don't watch/listen to Loaded, Buzz Out Loud, etc... because I want to know what you think about politics. If it's a quick remark, that's perfectly understandable. If it's a Twitter post that's fine too, but I don't want to start seeing political outbursts on Loaded. ;)
Love your shows!
An interesting and very pertinent essay, Natali. I'm an old school journalist, trained in the balanced, unbiased way of reporting the news. But in applying for a blogging post, an editor told me that traditional journalists don't work out well as bloggers because "they're too based on reporting." I found that condescending, but I've slowly learned to inject my voice into posts I'm writing on another site. Still, the downside of "balanced" reporting is that opposing sides of an issue may not each have the same level of merit, but we create a false sense that they do. Here's a column in today's Washington Post http://tinyurl.com/mw3rur" rel="nofollow">http://tinyurl.com/mw3rur about the disservice the media are doing on the health care reform debate when they report that proponents say this but opponents say that...we're not helping the reader decide whom to believe. The columnist calls GOP arguments against health care reform what they are: "Falsehoods." That's the best service you can provide as a journalist.
On the Internet anything goes, including Journalism. I think that is what is so great about it. Unfortunately you have the bad stuff as well (spam, porn etc..)
I think that it is impossible for you or any other person not to have opinions or biases. Question you may want to ask is anyone going to listen?
You will turn on and turn off any number of people based on their own beliefs. You can't plan for that. Just have to have a thick skin.
There are no unbiased news sources; they only pretend to be neutral. I listen to Michael Savage and Mark Levin fully aware that they are conservative individuals. I never listened to "Air America" because they were openly politically liberal.
Those getting their butts handed to them in the worst way are trying to be politically ambiguous, but it's failing miserably. The major news networks continue to lose ground, and newspapers are irrelevant while talk radio and political blogs continue to grow year after year.
When the dust clears we're going to find that because everyone is biased, we're all listening to what suits us best and ignoring altering points of view...to our own detriment. We all pretend to be open minded on issues that don't really matter to us, but when we get to our hot button topic, anything but a complete victory is failure; a sure sign no one can be completely unbiased.
Personally, as a journalist myself, I've witnessed the line between News and Op-Ed pieces blurred to new levels over the years and it's something I'm truly saddened by. News should be unbiased 100% of the time. Op-Ed pieces are where reporters can show their bias. The problem we're having today is that people no longer know the difference between News and Opinion. Articles that should go on the Op-Ed pages appear regularly on the front page as news and this has warped a lot of people's minds as to what News really is.
As my old journalism prof. Bob Greene (rest in peace) used to say, "Your mother loves ya? SAYS WHO?" This was his way of illustrating we should only be writing something as news when we have a source that backs it up. That's a huge aspect of what's been lost today both on writers and readers.
People love writing opinion pieces because they don't need to find anyone or anything to back up their ideas and the articles almost always generate discussion. People also love reading opinion pieces because they can usually find someone who agrees with them on any given subject.
I'm actually fine with Op-Ed pieces and write them regularly for work, but they're billed as just that, opinion pieces, which is why in the end I feel both forms of journalism are completely valid, just as long as they are presented as what they are.
Natali, I honestly do not think of you as a straight news journalist, but rather as an opinion journalist working primarily in the technology sphere (for now, anyway). I listen to you, and to BoL, Gadgettes, Loaded, BW's Technology and You, and some other podcasts to hear the opinions of techies/tech professionals, whom I respect, along with their reasons. I filter the hard news out of the opinions. But I listen to CNET News Daily Podcast, WSK Tech News Briefing, and Slash Dot Review for a quick rundown of (mostly) tech hard news.
The line has surely blurred somewhat, and I don't mind reporters having opinions, but I want a line drawn between contexts where we get "the facts, ma'am, only the facts” and a commentary. On BoL there is a skeleton of hard news with sinews of reaction, and a covering of opinion, and prediction. On loaded you generally present the data with the momentary aside. News has never been opinion free (ahem, Hearst Newspapers in the early 1900's) but we should definitely resist the temptation to compartmentalize and isolate the opinion from the data.
It would seem the ratings challenged are the vanilla types who are unbiased, trying to just present facts from all sides. These are all the bottom rung reporters and freelancers you've never heard of. Often they don't even get to credit their own name on a report.
On the other hand, those you have the best ratings frequently let their opinions be known. Even more so if the opinion is controversial. It's even more engaging if the opinion is full of easy to spot inaccuracies and blatant falsehoods, because readers/viewers feel good making corrections and arguing.
In order to pursuit ratings, talking heads are encouraged to rant. This encourages bs to breed, until the media and all unbiased journalism publicizes the bs as fact. Saddam Hussein behind 9/11. Obama friends of terrorists and no birth certificate. I'll take your word for it about Verizon but I havn't looked into seeing another side of the story.
So leaving behind journalistic integrity becomes dangerous. A nation of misinformed. I don't want to cite Goodwin's law but when gets used to the propaganda, it's easier to do evil.
Don't take this the wrong way, but you (and most of your CNET colleagues) are not journalists. Perhaps you are when you wear your CBS hat, but at CNET you all provide reporting WITH commentary or review. This is was your audience expects and wants from you, Molly, Tom and the rest.
This is true for any reporter who twitters or blogs. We expect bias and opinion. We want your personality, not bland reporting. Otherwise we'll follow the AP or some other news wire for that.
I think journalists writing an article about a given topic should initially keep to the facts and give the reader the opportunity to draw his/her own conclusions. The reason being that readers' opinions can be easily influenced when reading about something for the first time.
That said, readers do value educated opinions about a topic and journalists are at times the best resource, being close to the subject matter and able to express themselves effectively. Journalists should definitely be allowed a medium for expressing their own personal opinions on a topic, as long as they are separate from their officially unbiased reports. Platforms such as a personal web page, blog, and Twitter/Facebook accounts are a perfect medium for this. I see nothing wrong w/ an article stating "read my opinion on my blog page." I do see something wrong w/ an article mixing them up and reader not being aware of which are opinions vs which are facts. Sometimes they are easy to tell apart (eg anything reported on Fox News), but most often they are not. As journalists, you just need to be aware of the line between expressing your opinion and influencing the audience.
It really depends what you are reporting.
When it comes to technology I want my journalists (like you) to give me your opinion, that is what I am looking for. Dvorak is a perfect example of a journalist that gives his opinion. Sometimes I agree with what he says and sometimes he is just doing it to cause attention.
I like Rocky Road, I don't like Vanilla.
Natali, I've only been a journalist for two years now but I think I can remember back to when I was a reader. :o)
I think journalism is first and foremost about being unbiased. I think we should never come out with a statement like 'Blu-ray is dead'. First off, I disagree with this particular statement that you and a few other journalists have made recently. Second, statements such as that actually bias the reader to not go out and buy that Blu-ray player they were going to buy this weekend, thus you make your predictions self fulling. I'm not saying you have to join the Blu-ray bandwagon but I do think that all journalists need to be more even handed in their reporting. There are seldom only two sides to any story and I want to be informed as much as possible so I want to hear as much as the author knows about the subject.
As a tech writer myself I would like to share my personal opinion that Blu-ray will catch on. The reasons are many but boil down to these three things. The price of players has dropped to the very affordable $100-$200 range, you can actually buy some main stream Blu-ray titles for less than their DVD versions, and Blu-ray drives are showing up in more and more desktop and laptops every day. I believe the amazing growth in Blu-ray in the past year, a year when most businesses took hits of 20%-35% or more in sales, shows that it is a viable medium and will be so for a long time.
IMHO, streaming media has 5-10 years before its a viable way for the consumer to download 1080P 24fps or 30fps movies. Who wants to wait hours for 8-20 GB of data to download just so they can watch a movie? The bandwidth, at least in the US, is years away from being able to handle huge data streams that true 1080P HD video require, even for streaming. At the 10 megabits per second that my cable company supplies it takes about an hour for me to download 1 GB of data. When that download speed increases by a factor of 10x or 20x then I think we'll be ready for the technology that might unseat Blu-ray as the easiest and highest quality watching experience.
Right now I'm getting several Blu-ray movies a week from Netflix and watching them on my new Samsung 40" B650 series LCD I bought from Sears, using a Samsung BD-P1600, which I bought on Amazon for $210, including 5 Blu-ray movies. I've never enjoyed watching movies as much as I do now. Animation is especially gorgeous on Blu-ray but movies like The Golden Compass look amazing too.
That's my 2 cents on the matter. :o)
Sincerely,
Robert Jensen
As for the second part of your post. A journalist is supposed to be unbiased, an Editorialist can voice their personal viewpoints.
I am not a journalist but do enjoy studying history to some extent and from what I can remember the idea that journalists have to be unbiased is a pretty new idea and one the I think is not all that possible. The order that things are reported in the words chosen to describe something will always taint the story. I for one welcome this as long as the one reporting it does not try to hide their feelings. What I find offensive is when I am told someone is fair and balanced when they are quite clearly not.
A better approach, I believe is to try and show the opposing view and not just discount them. While I think as a human being we can not help having biases we can choose to look at something from another persons point of view even if we do not agree with it.
After quickly reading a few comments below it seems most are crying for unbiased reporters because they want plain facts. That may be well and good for some reporters but no offense Loaded isn't the first place I hear about news. I've read tweets, I've went through my google reader, I've read other blogs. By the time Loaded comes into my iTunes around lunch time, I'm looking to hear what Natali has to say about the news of the day.
I think older people still operate the way their parents did, they work 9-5 and then come home and watch Brian Williams or whomever give the news. That is their main source of news and it should be unbiased. But for me as a 23-year-old tech-nerd, I've already seen those stories from a variety of sites and by 6pm I would just be getting a vanilla brand of the news.
I've heard you talk about your news pilot you have been putting together and I wonder what that will be like. If it is a Katie Couric-like newscast with tweets read that doesn't interest me (just like CNN doing this constantly doesn't interest me). So I'm not sure I know what the balance is but I do know if it has your voice carrying the direction of the broadcast it will at least be interesting enough for me to watch.
I was an avid viewer of Command N (even bought a t-shirt) until on a broadcast Amber Mac mentioned the Presidential race and "hoped" Obama would win. I have never seen Command N again and no longer follow on twitter. I was a fan of Leo Laporte for years...and stop listening/watching anything he is involved in after a twitter comment on tax day.
I want tech news not political opinions or prefrences.
Inherently unbiased...
Just want to say that I am a long time follower of Loaded and I catch you on other shows as my time permits. I have watched the news and how it has and is reported change over the last 30 yrs. I must say, unbiasedly, that it has defiantly degraded over that time. People like Edward Marrow, Walter Cronkite, Harry Reasoner, Mike Wallace, Dan Rather, & Morley Safer had provided very high standards for television news reporting. It is also important to remember that, until the last 15 years or so, news reporting was primarily independent of the Cooperations. The Networks were entities in and of themselves. They weren't owned by other concerns and were able to speak unbiasedly.
If a reporter told us about Dow making pesticides that caused cancer, or cigaret companies research into how to make cigarettes more addicting and knowing as early as the 50's that they were directly responsible for cancer they were "doing their job" and they were free from repercussions. That is just no longer true.
Natalie, if you say something that publicly embarrass some corporate entity that owns or is owned by CNBC just see how long you stay on the air. Even someone as big and Dan Rather was not immune. This kind of control of the news is dangerous. It leaves us with less news. No one reports that certain chemical companies are selling pesticides in 3rd world countries that the can't sell in the U.S. because they are known to definitely cause cancer. The 3rd world countries have no laws to prosecute, they unload their stock of pesticides, they own the news so nothing gets reported. Monsanto's genetically modified corn pushed on the, 3rd world, is cross pollinating with non-modified corn and effecting crops around the world and no one is reporting.
So now with the "New Media" we have much more information to sift through. We have many more opinions to wrestle with, and we have much much much less plain unbiased news. Many are happy to tell us how the events they report will/should effect our lives, and how we should be responding. They have become less carful about who gets on the tube and what kind of legitimization that gives their guest/expert. And now, the driving concern is ratings. Nobody listens to both sides. Both sides are polarized against each other and unwilling to listen to the other side or even meet in the middle. We need umbiased reporting now more then ever. It is not coming. Someone once said that an informed society is a free society. We are becoming the Uninformed.
I do believe that there is room for opinion in reporting. But it needs to be expressed as such. Tell me what is true and tell me what is your opinion. Try your best to give both sides. That doesn't mean that we need some sort of watered down 50% coverage of each view. It does mean that if the truth is that all bad or all good it gets reported as such. I don't expect bad news or good news with no personal reaction. I do expect in proportion to the event.
Well that is my thoughts, sort of soap box like now that I re-read it. Feel free to tear it apart or build it up. I will continue to catch Loaded and your other appearances as time allows.
There is a definition crisis going on here. A journalist reports facts without bias. A commentator reports and expresses opinion (bias). It is that black and white and simple.
I do wish there were more journalists out there rather than commentators. It is the height of arrogance and selfishness for a real journalist to express an opinion while practicing journalism. There are plenty of forums for journalists to make commentaries. Don't muck up the news with pointless blathering of opinion. People watching or reading news want just that.
I agree with you. I like to know the journalists political views so that I know where they are coming from when covering a story. The problem sometimes is trying to decide whether I'm hearing the reporter's bias or the network's bias. On Twitter I follow news agencies that are Left, Right and Center in their idealogies, so that when a story is covered I get all the points of view.
Just playing devil's advocate, but why stop at 'heck' in 'to heck with unbiased'?
Is that what you thought in your head or did you censor yourself as not to offend your audience? ;)
First off, there is certainly opinion in journalism, but sharing pure opinion is generally done by pundits, editorial columnists, and a good number of bloggers, and they are still considered journalists, at least IMHO. At the same time, I don't look to Dvorak for a review of the new iPod... (or Fox news for my current event news (which, btw, I think CNN has higher ratings than both Fox(R) and MSNBC(D))). Now that we’ve excluded those who pronounce themselves as opinionated, we get to the crux of your blog post…
When people want their news, and just news- as in information about current events, I’d like to hope, at least theoretically, that they'd like only the facts conveyed so they can form their own opinions: if my news is being fed to me with a spin, I'm going to question whether or not I'm hearing the truth or just hearing lies, so I would choose to avoid listening to such broadcasts.
Alas, I’m afraid that people in general (and all of us at some point) do just the opposite (aka your point about Fox news being popular is well-taken), and only listen to journalists whose reports/spin are most in keeping with their own opinions, because, in the end, are you really going to listen to someone every night that upsets you with everything he/she says? No. You are going to listen to someone that agrees with your outlook on life because it’s comforting. Again, theoretically, if said people are at all intelligent, they should openly admit to feeding their own self-serving biases, but the fear is that they don’t realize this, in which case subjective news services are doing us a grave disservice.
Therefore, if you are conveying ‘the news’, I think it’s your obligation, as a journalist, to report it as objectively as possible. If you want to share your opinions and biases with other people, your product should clearly be labeled as such and I think journalists owe that to their listeners (which is why Foxes BS about being fair/balanced or whatever is particularly offensive, IMHO). Being a journalist is a very powerful job, and with great power comes great responsibility… ;)
So, I think there’s another way for journalists to convey the news objectively, but also still share their opinion; I think BOL is a poignant example of this. So, let’s say you clearly dislike FiOS. The irresponsible thing would be to pick only negative Verizon stories and pick only positive Comcast stories (if there are any ;) ) and report them as all the news there is to know about ISPs. The alternative and less misleading method is to just vent about them in a manner that is clearly just your opinion and not that of the news entity you are representing. I think with such a set-up you are clearly stating your opinion, which I am free to agree or disagree with, without subliminally feeding me your own bias re-purposed as ‘the news’. I think this should satisfy most listeners/viewers, and if they disagree with your opinion parts then they are free to go elsewhere. The problem with this method is that if the company you work for doesn’t agree with your opinions or thinks that your opinions are causing them to lose business, then, you might get fired or censored. Is that fair? My opinion here may be unpopular, but I’d have to ultimately say a qualified ‘yes’… In the end, you are working for and representing a business that has its own interests which should be free to pursue them, importantly assuming that the company’s motives aren’t biased themselves (which is a whole other conversation entirely). Your options after that are to try and work for someone who agrees with or is ok with your opinions or to freelance. So where it may be ok for me to have an opinionated blog about tech, it might not be ok for you. I guess that’s just a concession you make by working in the field, but I think those kind of concessions go with every job. I might have an opinion on a particular way to treat patients, but ultimately my employer can tell me what to do or not to do, and, if they don’t like what I’m doing they might try to fire me. My options at that point would then be to sue, saying that what I’m doing should be ok/protected, or I could start my own private practice where I could do anything I wanted as long as it’s within the confines of the established law. These are the rules we live and operate by and I think they are just in the long run (again IMHO).
If the point of this blog post were to say that you, as an employee, should have the ability to share whatever opinion you want, whenever you wanted, I just feel like that is a little unrealistic. Is it unfortunate? Kinda. Should it be illegal? Probably not, unless you can prove that whatever opinions you hold have absolutely no bearing on your employer’s ability to conduct its business fairly. (I kind of feel like a jerk for saying this, but it seems like the most fair thing to say in the big picture :-/ and while it’s popular to scream “fight back against the man”, let’s be honest, that doesn’t get you anywhere- its more important to be smart about things than just be headstrong.)
So, in conclusion, it seems that it’s all about how you portray yourself- to your viewers and to your employer. As long as you are responsible and clear at least you are not being irresponsible and shouldn’t be censored and you should be well-received. In addition, when you DO share your opinion, as long as you give fair time to some “Well Actually”-s (as you mentioned in your post), you SHOULD be ok, although, let’s face it, Verizon is never going to sponsor BOL now… lol.
In as far as what should the viewer/listener/reader do aka where should we go for news? I think you try your hardest to wade through the crap and pick the least biased source, or at least one that represents both sides of an issue, and then use your own critical thinking skills to sift the truth out from the BS. Alternatively, if you have the time and patience, try listening to opposing sources.
One final note, if you look at the BOL forums, people get upset over all sorts of stupid crap like ‘you like apple too much’ or ‘you hate apple too much’, and those people might come and go, but in the end, as you point out, everyone serves themselves best by realizing that any one opinion, while it could never make everyone happy, may often spur intelligent discussions, and when those discussions are fair and balanced, we are then able to realize the true value of voice.
Tysm, Natali, super post- it was really thought provoking.
Sry for the length, I just thought I’d share my opinion… ;)
-Dr. Karl :)
The world depends on unbiased opinions. As a former journalist, there is an obligation to the public at large to provide an unbiased report on the news. In this day & age, "everyone is a media outlet" and opinions tend to skew towards emotion and personal agendas. Bloggers need to take more responsibility for the words they write as they are not held to true Associated Press standards in their "reporting". Today's youth can benefit from hearing neutral arguments pro & con on issues subject to debate. It is a journalists job to report the facts and let the public formulate their own opinion (as you said). You are in a position to influence such thought, and that only makes the public less informed [dumber] as they are allowing the media to manipulate their minds.
With all due respect to Mr. Jarvis (I have not read his book), but he did spend the greater part of his career as an entertainment journalist, which with respect to your blog entry here, does not put him in a class with such "hard news" anchors as Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw and Dan Rather. When Jennings passed away and Dan Rather ushered out of his job (for a "more hipper & younger" newscast) it appeared to be the end of an era in "hard news" reporting.
I do read blogs like Gawker, TechCrunch and PerezHilton for entertainment value, but I also understand the difference and never trust their writers to provide me with actual facts.
So to answer your question, opinions are like a**holes, everyone has them. What we have less of, but need more of, is unbiased, unfiltered, neutral reporting.