Infinite MonkeysHere's an interesting follow-up to our discussion about news media types who give money to political campaigns. This point in particular dovetails nicely with some of what I've been saying:
The real question isn't so much whether reporters have preferences -- most human beings do -- but whether they can set aside those preferences long enough to tell a story straight. Given the choice, it seems better to have a reporter who does his job without spin, even if he gives money to candidates on the side, than one who professes objectivity because he doesn't give money -- but whose "news" articles fall just short of agitprop.
By the way, I don't think it's a matter of giving the public too much credit (as Zaius said the other day) about its critical faculties. I think nine-tenths of the average media-consuming audience is paranoid, superstitious, prejudiced, ill-informed and easily misled by urban legends and patent medicine salesmen. But after years and years of reports and surveys and commentaries about the liberal bias that permeates the mainstream media, this should hardly be surprising. The notion has sunk into the public consciousness. That's why you see polls like this one from Gallup on Thursday, which shows the public trust in newspapers hovering around 22 percent, and the weekly stories about plunging circulation, etc.
(In related news, Italians trust blogs more than mainstream media.)
Posted by H.L. Monkey at June 23, 2007 09:04 AMThis is an interesting discussion - I wrote the post about the Italians trusting blogs more than mainstream media.
I think it's in our nature of human beings to disagree and have marked differences in opinion.
Mainstream media is coming to terms with the true free circulation of information.
This is a very exciting time, if you have the capability and courage to speak your mind you will acquire reputation and become an authority.
Perhaps a step in the right direction to come to terms with reality - the real one ...
Posted by: Sante at June 24, 2007 07:20 AM