Read on Twitter
I wrote about the myth of an "objective" press, and how appeals to it are used to maintain existing power structures in media: https://www.mediamatters.org/howard-kurtz/myth-objective-press-benefits-powerful-expense-people
I wrote this after seeing the latest round of pearl-clutching from the powerful and elite in media (who believe that they are entitled to a large platform for their views) getting upset that they have to face criticism for those views.
For instance, over the weekend, Fox News' Howard Kurtz said this:
"These latest developments at The New York Times and elsewhere suggest we are losing to the social justice warriors in what I view as a battle for the soul of journalism."
Calm down, buddy.
"These latest developments at The New York Times and elsewhere suggest we are losing to the social justice warriors in what I view as a battle for the soul of journalism."
Calm down, buddy.
Chris Wallace, who was a guest on Kurtz's show, suggested that people upset with an op-ed shouldn't try to *silence* that op-ed, but should write their own... in hopes that the paper *chooses* to run it.
And that's something that gets overlooked: the editorial decisions involved in which views get heard, which ones don't, how large of an audience will see what you say.
All news media is gatekeeping, biased in favor of the powerful. Only so many views can be heard.
All news media is gatekeeping, biased in favor of the powerful. Only so many views can be heard.
(As something of a side note, I'd be interested to see what would happen if people like Kurtz, Piers Morgan, Andrew Sullivan, Ben Shapiro, etc. went back and replaced the word "woke" in their articles and tweets with a more substantive explanation of what they're saying.)
(A lot like rolling your eyes at "political correctness" or "identity politics," using "woke" to dismiss criticism of the status quo is what I call rhetorical empty calories. They may taste good/sound good, but they're just filler for points you haven't been able to make.)
(If you're interested in more on that, check out this piece from a couple years ago that I wrote) https://www.mediamatters.org/laura-ingraham/media-keep-talking-about-identity-politics-what-does-it-even-mean-anymore
When people refer to "objectivity" or "neutrality" (two terms that are often (incorrectly) used interchangeably, they're referring to journalism through the lens of a neutral figure in society who simply doesn't exist.
And what they mean, all too often, is "the truth as told by straight, white men."
Can a Black person cover a story about a police shooting an unarmed Black man?
Can a gay person cover a story about a gay couple turned away by a business for being gay?
Can a Black person cover a story about a police shooting an unarmed Black man?
Can a gay person cover a story about a gay couple turned away by a business for being gay?
Can a woman cover a story about abortion rights?
You get the idea. The question is whether people from marginalized groups can remain "objective" in their reporting. Society's default has been to turn to what editors and publishers view as neutral: white dudes.
You get the idea. The question is whether people from marginalized groups can remain "objective" in their reporting. Society's default has been to turn to what editors and publishers view as neutral: white dudes.
These aren't just hypotheticals, either. In 2009, Kurtz dedicated an entire column to the question of whether Black women in the press pool could objectively cover Michelle Obama, even noting that these aren't questions asked of other people.
There's a really good, informative piece that was written by @rebel19 in 2018 about how the biases in media and the way certain voices are deemed neutral enough, universal enough, can internalize in audiences. https://www.cjr.org/special_report/objectivity-new-journalism.php
Another piece I referenced in my article was @TonyaMosley's Nieman Lab article from the beginning of the year https://www.niemanlab.org/2020/01/the-neutrality-vs-objectivity-game-ends/
In January 2017, @LewisPants wrote this brilliant piece about modern journalism that ended up costing him his job (seriously). https://medium.com/@lewispants/objectivity-is-dead-and-im-okay-with-it-7fd2b4b5c58f
Another great point from @rebel19's piece, on how the status quo — and the people who represent it — even shape the language we use, hedging on euphemisms rather than truths that might make the powerful feel discomfort.
What's interesting about the pursuit of "objectivity" was that it's a.) a relatively recent (late 19th century) part of American journalism, and b.) was originally intended to describe reporting methods, not the reporters themselves.
Here's a great piece on that: https://www.americanpressinstitute.org/journalism-essentials/bias-objectivity/lost-meaning-objectivity/
But the *same exact people* who rail against "sjws" and "woke mobs" who criticize a bad op-ed or questionable editorial decision are the quickest to fly into an all-out tantrum when presented with a view they don't like.
See: our sanitized US history taught in schools.
See: our sanitized US history taught in schools.
The way US history is taught oversimplifies reality, helps build a false mythology about the country, and most importantly of all, frames us as the "good guys" in every conflict without question or nuance.
To me, that's the most dangerous form of "political correctness."
To me, that's the most dangerous form of "political correctness."
To me, that's the most dangerous form of "indoctrination of children."
When NYT did its 1619 project, conservatives flipped out and started raging about how its authors hate the country, blah blah, etc. Why can't they handle views that challenge their own ideas?
When NYT did its 1619 project, conservatives flipped out and started raging about how its authors hate the country, blah blah, etc. Why can't they handle views that challenge their own ideas?
Whether you agree or disagree with someone's criticism, whether you think there's overreach on part of people challenging the system or not, I think journalism and media as a whole could benefit from a bit of self-reflection at this particular moment in history.
I hope you enjoy the piece: https://www.mediamatters.org/howard-kurtz/myth-objective-press-benefits-powerful-expense-people
