E&P: "It's Not About Balance...It's Not Even About Objectivity..."

E&P pens a piece pretending to scold journalists for wearing their dyed-in-the-wool Blue politics on their sleeves (prompted by the Seattle Times' newsroom erupting in applause at the news of Unterfurher Rove's resignation), but can't bring itself to actually engage the real problem - that newsrooms are overloaded with Democrats by ridiculous margins, and that this slants news coverage consistently and egregiously.

First, the magicians and magic:

A good newsroom is a sacred and magical place in which we can and should test every assumption, challenge each other's thinking, ask the fundamental questions those in power hope we will overlook.

If only that were reality. But, as evidenced most recently by the hijinx at Seattle Times, it isn't. The preaching gets funnier from there. Color me not shocked:

If we wore our politics on our sleeves in here, (ed.- IF?!!!) I have no doubt that in this and in most other mainstream newsrooms in America, the majority of those sleeves would be of the same color: blue. Survey after survey over the years have demonstrated that most of the people who go into this business tend to vote Democratic, at least in national elections. That is not particularly surprising, given how people make career decisions and that social service and activism is a primary driver for many journalists.

But if (ed. - again, pretending it isn't happening) we allowed our news meetings to evolve into a liberal latte klatch, I have no doubt that a pathological case of group-think would soon set in (ed. - yet again, in denial that it is actually happening). One of the advances of which I’m most proud over the years is our willingness to question and challenge each other as we work to give our readers the most valuable, meaningful journalism we can.

The result: A newspaper that is known nationally for aggressive watchdog and investigative reporting, without fear or favor. From a Democratic United States senator (Brock Adams) to our region's biggest employer (Boeing) to a large advertiser (Nordstrom) to our school districts and courts and police, we have confronted them all with tough questions to which they had no good answers. The result has been a better community, laws changed, lives saved.

It’s not about "balance," which is a false construct. It isn't even about "objectivity," which is a laudable but probably unattainable goal. It is about independent thinking and sound, facts-based journalism -- the difference between what we do and the myopic screed that is passed off as "advocacy" journalism these days.

It's not "advocacy journalism." It's just "advocacy," and that advocacy always seems to flow (with the money) to one particular political party - The Democrats.

The problem hasn't been fixed, E&P. It is rather fixed quite firmly into the culture of the daily newspaper and nearly every broadcast outlet in the United States.

You've all got a LOOOONG way to go before you can claim what you do is "independent thinking." From Dan Rather to Eason Jordan to Keith Olbermann to Chris Matthews to NPR to Pinch Sulzberger to Dana Priest to Bill Moyers to the fact that the NYT hasn't endorsed a Republican for president since Eisenhower, the evidence piles up every day. And those of us who have been paying attention, that is just a small fraction of .001% of the pile.

Need a recent case and point? The AP's favorite Democrat operative next to Jennifer Loven: Nedra Pickler.

9-1. Never forget. Money talks. Bullsh*t walks.

Posted by: Good Lt. at 09:44 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 584 words, total size 4 kb.