A brief post inspired by lying liers who lied

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Most people seem to agree that "balance" is a desirable attribute in journalism, but sometimes I have my doubts.

Recently an editorial in the LA Times accused CNN's Anderson Cooper of "taking sides" in the Egyptian conflict. His supposed indiscretion consisted of repeatedly referring to Mr. Mubarak as "a Liar" while pointing out numerous "innacuracies" and outright falsehoods in the Egyptian government's statements.

To me, this raises the question of how do we define impartiality, and is it really something we want to encourage?


Now the argument could be made that such statements (aside from being just plane rude) could exacerbate an already delicate situation but the more I think about it the more I believe that calling those in power to task is one of the core missions of journalism, and that if something becomes an impediment to that mission it should be abhorred not encouraged.

Shouting “fire” in a theatre which is on fire is a duty incumbent on us all.
-Julian Porter

Comments

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

People seem to have forgotten that impartiality is an avenue to judgment. Hopefully the best judgment one can render. For some strange reason, we've taken to thinking that impartiality is the absence of judgment.

This is retarded.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

People seem to have forgotten that impartiality is an avenue to judgment. Hopefully the best judgment one can render.

Which is why I made the point to ask "how do we define impartiality?"

Still, as it stands I find the reluctance to "call a spade by it's name" puzzling.

[dv8nation.livejournal.com]

Today impartiality means if you write a story about one side that makes if look bad then if you don't do a story that makes the other side look bad you've sided with someone.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

Pointing out the inaccuracies and falsehoods is reporting, calling Mubarak a liar is opinion (the act of lying requires knowledge and intent to deceive; it's not something that one can usually state as an objective fact). There's a room for both in the public discourse but one is news, the other is editorial, and should be clearly labelled as such. This may seem like splitting hairs, but it is important.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

You've never seen Jon Stewart tear Fox News apart, have you?

He proves that they lie. It's awesome.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

I have. He proves that they tell half-truths and inaccuracies, but as I said, lying requires an intent that is exceptionally hard to prove.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

It's nice to know there is someone out there who is always 100% honest, and would never do things like, oh, edit tapes to prove a point. ;)

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

The proof is in the pudding/

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

The problem is that 'liar' has been so overused as to become a meaningless insult. It really does have an objective meaning though. If you can prove someone is stating something other than they know to be true, you can show they are objectively lying.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

The hard part is showing that they know it to be true.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Ok. So philosophically we cannot prove other people have minds--let alone the contents of that mind. So it's impossible to *prove* that Glen Beck knows that what he's spewing is BS.

But seriously, Jon Stewart comes about as close as you can:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-24-2011/24-hour-nazi-party-people

If that doesn't show that Megan Kelly is a liar, I think you have set the bar at an unrealstic level.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

I can't get that to load right now, but from memory all she was saying was something that wasn't true, not necessarily lying.

Now, I'm all OK with someone like John Stewart calling her a liar. As much as people take him as the news, he makes a big effort to say he's not the news. He is satire with editorialising. Opinion is A-OK there. My point is that if you are saying "THIS IS THE NEWS" then you can say "this person has made comments that are inconsistent with the comments they made yesterday", but you can't say they have lied. That judgement is up to the viewer to make.

I guess this goes into my wider issue with "news" broadcasts telling people what they should think, rather than present facts (even if they do so in a biased manner with selective editing and omission and the like) and letting consumers decide.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

It's pretty obvious that she is lying. She made two claims: that she watches Fox every night and that she doesn't see people making Nazi references. Now, given the litany of examples provided by Stewart she cannot actually watch Fox and miss them all. But let's be very generous and suppose she manages to *just* miss the reference each time it happens. Stewart then shows evidence of it happening on her show. So unless she isn't aware of what happens on her own show--and she manages to miss every reference to Nazis made on Fox (which Stewart shows are plenty, and to which O'Reilly responds, as seen a few episodes later, saying: Yes, I did call the left nazis, but I had a good reason) only then could she not be lying.

I agree that, in an absolute sense, you can never prove that someone knows something. You cannot go inside their brain and show that they were aware of X when they said ~X. But sometimes its just absurd; if you ask a person: Where were you yesterday? And they say "the amusement park" but were really at the beach and hadn't been to an amusement park in months, it's a safe bet that they are lying.

Not conclusively proven, but a safe bet.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

I agree with that. That's why it has become basically meaningless, because people will just throw it out there with little evidence.

[headhouse.livejournal.com]

There is a period in any discussion / presentation of an issue when information is still coming in / being gathered, in which impartiality is not only desirable but necessary, so that positions taken and decisions made about these issues are as correct as they can be.

Journalists' jobs are to gather and present us this information (or "news"), and to be as impartial about it as possible. It's not a reporter's job to judge, it's their job to report. Otherwise, they're just advocates.

And there are plenty of advocates already.

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

So what they're saying is, THEY REPORT AND YOU DECIDE?

I'm pretty sure that formula has been tried and found seriously wanting.

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

...wanting for balance because they only REPORTed what Roger Ailes DECIDEd he wanted us to hear.

[dv8nation.livejournal.com]

Wanting in anyone with a brain not being able to see the puppet strings.

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

Ironically, wanting for impartiality.

That may just a function of the media outlet that uses that formula, in the manner that they use it.

But moreso, the bigger error it has is that it constitutes an unrealistic claim to a lack of bias, which no individual or source can reasonably claim.

It's one thing to believe what a source says even if their bias has led them to an incorrect judgement; it's another to believe what even they know, or should know, is a blatant lie.

[dv8nation.livejournal.com]

I think it's fine for journalists to take sides. As long as they're up front with which side they're on. The Daily SHow people aren't journalists but they've been some of the most objective commentators around for years and yet they've never really hidden that they're liberals.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

They're also not pretending to be news. They're quite clearly opinion. The same goes for Glen Beck, he isn't news, he's opinion. That this difference is so hard to explain to people is exemplary of the sorry state of 21st century journalism.

Read a paper from 50 years ago, opinions were easy to spot, they were on the page labelled OPINION or EDITORIAL.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

...and papers were actually called things like "The County Democrat (http://www.sc-democrat.com/)" The whole impartiality thing was just a scam to sell twice as many papers. ;P

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Plane rude? How euclidean. ;P.

Frankly Cooper's guilty only of tactlessly pointing out that the Pharaoh in fact had no clothes.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Taking 6 units of math this semester, I thinks it's affecting my brain.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

Math makes baby jesus cry, or so christians have led me to believe...

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Hell, Math would make baby Antichrist cry.

[thies.livejournal.com]

I remember back when I was a kid there was one guy sitting in a studio reading the news. There were reporters on the scene of whatever was going on, but they weren't made part of the news, they were delivering footage. I preferred that kind of reporting over celebritizing the reporters and making them the news.

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

That was back when the networks were okay seeing their news sections losing money.

[harry-beast.livejournal.com]

calling those in power to task is one of the core missions of journalism
I disagree. Journalists are there to find and disseminate the information that is required to hold people in power accountable. What is done with that information is up to the people and institutions to whom the people in power are accountable. Reporters who want to create, interpret or enforce laws and policies should get off their high horse and run for office.

[sealwhiskers.livejournal.com]

I really think there is no such thing as true impartiality, just various ways of phrasing things. It is important in some contexts how you phrase things, however, pretense is vital sometimes.

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

True impartiality *may* exist, but even still, why would anyone ever opine on something that they literally had absolutely no interest in, of any kind?

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

There may not be a true impartiality that is accessible to us, but that doesn't excuse reporters from making their best effort at getting there anyhow.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

This.

[caerfrli.livejournal.com]

Fox sucks.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

And Sox _____.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

Yay spoonerisms!