WRFH/Radio Free Hillsdale 101.7 FM - Flyover Features: A Critique of Mainstream Media Ideologues

Episode Date: September 18, 2024

Emma and Sophie discuss a "playbook" that obscures the concept of objectivity in journalism, and debate its pros and cons.

You're listening to Fly Over Features, a podcast where we dissect popular culture, a humorous cultural commentary podcast, if you will. This is Sophia Mant, speaking with Emma Verini. And in this episode, we are going to discuss a report put out by the ASU, that is, Arizona State University, Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communications. The report is titled Beyond Objectivity, Producing Trustworthy News in Today's Newsrooms, and published by the Stanton Foundation. So there's an article and then there's a more in-depth report, which is I think around 20 pages. Yes, and it was published in 2023. So this is about a year old. So this news article is called How to Produce Trustworthy News Without Objectivity. Their sort of thesis, they put it at the end of their first paragraph, is we provide a fresh vision for how to replace outmoded objectivity with a more relevant articulation of journalistic standards.

And so just outright, looking at this news article, none of this stuff really seems that ridiculous. I mean, there is some truth to the fact that it's difficult to be completely objective when you're reporting or when you're writing a features article or something like that, especially when you're writing a features article. And so when you read this article, nothing really sounds that crazy. And then you read the report. Right. And it all sounds insane. And then it's also hypocritical because. they talk about

journalistic objectivity being impossible to strive for and yet they argue that outright actually trying for balance can lead to, quote, both-sidism, a dangerous trap when covering issues like climate change or the intensifying assault on democracy.

So it's like they have a moral obligation to actually go with a set narrative for some things. But I find it kind of stupid because if there really is an ultimate truth to something, if you just write down the facts, you're going to uncover that there's corruption. I mean, we were talking in Mrs. Servald's class, a teacher I have for journalism, how, you know, if there's, for example, corruption in a city council, if you just literally attend the meetings and factually write down what they're saying

and don't even have a narrative behind it. and let's say that, oh, they're embezzling funds or something, I don't know. And then you can find just by going to the meetings that, okay, there's something fishy here. And that's what I don't like. They kind of assume the public's a little dumb to just have to push a certain narrative. And it's also kind of disturbing because as we go through this, there's some pretty disturbing stuff said here. And this is based on more than, from the report itself, more than 75 interviews with a variety of newsleaders, journalists, and other experts, according to the article. And, I mean, it's, so it's respected publications.

What do you think of that, Emma? I mean, to be honest, I don't think that the idea behind this report is incorrect. No matter how you write an article, it's just simply not going to be objective. And that's not something that recently came about. It's not because of our, I don't know how this phrases it, but our quickly changing world. And I don't think that objectivity is outmoded. I just don't think that it was ever feasible because you're going to have choices you have to make when you write an article. You're going to have to choose which information you put at the top of the article, and that's going to be what most people read.

And then you're going to have to choose what you think is less important and put that towards the bottom. That's going to be what fewer people read. And then there's going to be decisions you have to make about what even to include in the first place. So there's going to be that bias of selecting what information you want to use. So I think that the idea behind this makes complete sense. And I actually, when I read this at first, I was like, I was thinking this is interesting. This is a good idea. The problem is when you get into the report.

That's the 20-page thing. So not the article that describes the report, but the actual report where it gets into sort of the meat and potatoes of what they actually, the standards that they actually want journalists to adopt. Yeah. I will say, I do have a bit of a different opinion on that because I personally agree that it's impossible to really be perfectly on objective, I mean, I think we are prone to bias on slum level, but I still think it's good to strive for trying to be fair and objective when covering stuff, especially because not to sound like journalists are all like self-important and we need them, but it's kind of

worries me or I even see it as actually in a non-woke way a bit dangerous if people are so addicted to pushing one narrative that they're not going to share the actual facts if say there's a natural disaster or a shooting and you're near where that is and you want, you know, information or help so that you can be safe and they're just interested in promoting, you know, arguments, moral arguments rather than what's actually happening. I mean, thankfully, I don't think we've gotten that extreme yet. Like if there is a dangerous person walking around loose, you're going to just get a report that they're around, around you or something.

But I don't know. If news organizations are increasingly becoming more and more biased, it is something that I worry about. And what I find strange is, there's another quote in here. And this does get just more and more extreme, where they mention how younger journalists, especially investigative reporters, began to question what objectivity really meant, if it did not challenge power, privilege, and inequality. But, I mean, like I said before, if you're, your old corrupt boss is, you know, like, I don't know, making you work 365 days a year, 12 hours,

and is not paying you for all that extra time. And then you hire a journalist to just report on how people feel about working there and you're actually just accurate about what the sources are saying. Like, that's going to be exposed. I mean, what do you think? Yeah. And I think there was something in there that said that doing that and, well, not necessarily that, but trying to portray both sides of an issue is not necessarily always the right thing to do or the correct way to produce trustworthy news.

So what you're saying is actually something that they would advise against because you're sharing. multiple perspectives and possibly even the incorrect perspective. So I think that you're correct and I think that this is, that counter, that contradicts what is said in this report as well, which is kind of crazy. Again, you know, if the boss is claiming, oh, you know, my reporter, not my reporters, sorry, my workers love working for me and I'm so good to them, but you have other sources that contradict that. Even if you report what the boss says, you know, it's, he's going to be proven wrong. And again, what I find really kind of destroys the myth some people have, that, you know,

the mainstream news is being attacked and know they really strive for objectivity. And it's conspiratorial to think that that could be any different, you know, you're just crazy for thinking they're unbiased is they have so many quotes where I'll say, for example, and I quote, the former executive editor of the Associated Press said she has not used the word objectivity since the early 1970s because she believes it reflects the worldview of the white male white establishment. Uh, okay. I guess, I guess us, I guess us non, uh, men, uh, cannot, because our people that don't identify as men cannot strive for, objectivity because we automatically come from a different perspective or you know someone who's not white can't report fairly on an issue because they have to bring their own biases i mean that's right which is kind of both sexist and racist to assume of someone yeah objectivity is a white male construct

is basically what this report is trying to say and you know if you fall outside of that category if you're a woman or if you're black, then, you know, you have to bring your feelings and emotions into your reporting. How offended would you be if you were working at a newsroom and your higher up wanted you to work on an issue because they thought you'd bring more emotion into it rather than like objectivity? I mean, I would, I would be pretty offended. I would think that they were calling me emotional. Yeah. It's like, I guess I can't fair. report on the issues because I like have two X chromosomes or something. I can't I I have to cry. I have to I have to complain about the the white male establishment. But it's it's it is it is silly because they also argue that striving for objectivity is is the view from nowhere because um according to uh, uh, NYU professor, New York University, and journalism critic Jay Rosen, he's saying, oh, that means

you don't have a point of view or a starting point or a philosophy. I'm just telling you the way it is, but I'm thinking, okay, not to like get into deep philosophical critiques, but that kind of is in itself a philosophy, but to each his own, I mean, to try to just fairly report at stuff, that doesn't mean you just literally don't stand for anything. I mean, it's, especially if the goal of a journalist is to actually talk about and inform the public. I mean, in theory, sometimes that would mean going against what the government says or other avenues. I mean, that doesn't mean you just are like, I don't know. That's right.

I mean, I think what, at the end of the day, what this is adverse. is that journalists make the tough moral decisions that what they're saying back in the day was usually delegated to the consumers of media. So now journalists have to be the ones who say, this is what is moral, this is the viewpoint people need to be having. And I think it's kind of funny because H.L. Makin actually has like a great essay about this. Basically, he thinks that journalists shouldn't take themselves too seriously in a sense. And that when journalists start taking themselves too seriously or even start editorializing,

that's when things go downhill. And I think that there's a lot of truth to that. When journalists start making themselves like these moral pundits, that's when we're going to have issues. Well, I haven't researched that much into the history of journalism, but it actually seems that the cases in which actually significant cases, instances of corruption or whatnot, was revealed by journalists. They didn't have this kind of, I'm better than everyone else's obligation. They just wanted to find the truth and report on it as fairly as they could.

I mean, if they did have that sense, it also wasn't clouded by the idea that, oh, I'm so much smarter or better than everyone else. And it is kind of crazy because to get political, because we already have, and this is a call through a commentary podcast, I definitely know of people who think that the normal news is not biased or strives to not be. And you hear about these people prioritizing diversity of the newsroom by, you know, trying to spread. certain liberal or left-wing views, and then you hear the, like, former director of digital news at NPR, which is definitely considered a unbiased source by many.

He argues that, you know, as a journalist of color, I have been told time and again that my identity doesn't matter, that I have to shed at all to worship at the altar of objectivity. I bristle at that notion. My lived experiences should inform what I cover. Wow. I mean, there's honestly just an element of narcissism to all of this because number one, you're putting yourself on a moral pedestal and saying what I think should inform what other people

read and what they end up thinking too. And then there's the other thing about how your life needs to inform the news you're reporting. It's like, no, it actually doesn't. Your job is to report the facts and it's quite simple. And there are some exceptions to this obviously, depending on. the type of news source you're writing for. But come on, NPR, you know, CNN. Yeah, I mean, I think that if you're working for a news station

that historically had the reputation of not being activist in nature. So, you know, if you're writing for either, say, Mother Jones or Catholic News Agency, you are openly coming forth with a set of biases or perspective that you're trying to favor. But those sources shouldn't be that way. And I mean, I understand actually what the former news director of digital news, I should say, of NPR is saying. And I'm not going to say that, you know, his race doesn't mean that he doesn't have a different perspective. But it's like without even realizing it, I think a lot of these people are almost being offensive or going back or to themselves by kind of implying that, oh, a black man can't fairly. as fairly report on the news because of his different experiences.

Or same with a female. I mean, like I said, I'm kind of actually offended because both of us are implicated in how, you know, we have to have this certain perspective instead of striving for objectivity. And then apparently at USA Today, Nicole Carroll said she seeks diversity of participants, experiences and views and daily brainstorming sessions and we need diversity. But when she talks, the groups she talks are affinity groups like, you know, LGBTQ plus or African, Afro-American group members about race coverage. But it's, it's not really diverse views because they're affinity groups, but they're all relevant towards one left-leaning viewpoint. You're not having people

from different perspectives, you know, traditionalist or conservative or honestly even, you know, much other than the stereotypical liberal view. I mean, there's certain left-wing perspectives even, I think, that are not necessarily supported or shared by the mainstream establishment. And I get that they view some perspectives. It's like all perspectives are equal, but some are more equal than others. I think that this report is basically saying what's implied at least is that you can't have objectivity, obviously. And since you can't have objectivity, you need to take these super left-leaning positions.

They're just admitting it. They're not even trying to be on biased now. And it does annoy me a bit. because I definitely have my own perspectives. I'm rightlinging myself. Never would have guessed. I go to Hillsdale. But I have thought about wanting to just cover the news or what I see happening around me

without necessarily putting a narrative behind it as a career. Because, again, from my perspective, if there is bad things going on, it's going to automatically be revealed. But it just is frustrating to read this. And they're also out of touch because they talk about, Oh, the biggest demographic of people who read our news is older white males. But, I mean, not to be politically, you know, incorrect, but I mean, yeah, like, I think the people that are actually still reading mainstream news paper sources are going to be that kind of older,

white, liberal Tim Walls type demographic. It just makes sense to me, you know, I mean, like, they're kind of out of touch to think that it would be otherwise. I have a list of some of the people that were implicated in this document and that also contains advice for diversifying the newsroom and basically all kinds of liberal left-leaning values that they have to have and whatnot. It's kind of crazy. And there are some parts of this that actually are less extreme.

For example, there's one executive editor of the New York Times, Joseph Kahn, who's says you can't be an activist and be a Times journalist at the same time. So I think that there are some more moderate standpoints within this report. But then some of the stuff, like you said, is just completely obnoxious. It's off the rails. Which, yeah. One thing that I thought was a little bit without realizing it had kind of questionable or disturbing implications was they talk about how a lot of people for mainstream news sources like the New York Times. I don't remember if that was specifically implicated how a lot of their reporters want to be activist on social media and they say, hey, you have to present some level of objectivity or not being biased. But it makes me think, well, so basically

they're trying to act like they're more on bias than they are, although it also makes sense you want to have a good social media presence while you work. But I was thinking, you know, it says a lot that a lot of people working for those papers want to just constantly have an activist account on Twitter. Right. Yeah. Anyway.

Anyway, before we close here, I can just list some significant figures who have been involved or interviewed for this document. We have Tracy Grant, the editor-in-chief for Encyclopedia Bermanica and also the former managing editor of the Washington Post.

We have Mark Fisher, Senior Editor and Writer, The Washington Post. We have Chairman NBC Universal News Group. And we have Saeed Ahmed, Vice President of News for Digital Platforms, Associated Press, former Director of Digital News, NPR, Joseph Khan, Joseph Khan, Executive Editor for the New York Times. Scott Livingston, Senior Vice President of News, Sinclair Broadcast Group. Kevin Marita, executive editor, Los Angeles Times. Alvin Patrick, executive producer, race and culture unit, CBS News.

P.S. Arc, business editor, the Associated Press. And Jeff Zucker, former president, CNN Worldwide. So, plenty of extreme. huge, major, significant news sources are calling for this. And it's a little, a little eerie to see, especially because I believe the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism at ASU is considered quite respective and significant as far as journalism schools go. So it's a little unnerving to see broadly speaking evidence of journalism going this way. But I guess we can remember, if you ever run into someone who thinks the news is perfectly unbiased, you can show them this report, which claims straight

from the horse's mouth that it's literally racist and sexist. So double whammy there, maybe even homophobic for a triple whammy, to strive to share both sides on important issues. Right. And that just sort of shows where we are at this point, which is unfortunate. Well, that's all we have time for today. Yep. So thank you for tuning in. Thank you for listening. We hope to see you next time.

Yep. And you listen to Flyover Features. Bye.