Democracy is not the objective. The objective is liberty under law. The right to live and work as we choose, secure from unreasonable interference by both rude strangers and our own government. The form of government is merely a tool for that purpose.
I think what you’re eliding here is that the vast majority of journalists aren’t capable of understanding and thus contextualizing hot button social issues. We don’t live in the era of Marx and Freud any more. The mode of evidence in social science is now statistical and if you don’t understand statistics, you don’t understand much of anything. Instead, what you get is cherry picking of studies for something that “proves” the journalist’s preconceptions, and then sanctimonious preaching.
The ideal of objectivity in public discourse must be saved. An understanding approaching objectivity can be attained, but through comprehensive study, personal encounter with persons of other horizons, and dialogue across civilizations. Approaching objectivity requires sustained intellectual work. Seeking objectivity, with the aspiration to understand and speak the truth, is the moral duty of journalists, academics, intellectuals, and true leaders.
More important than using other words for "objective" or "unbiased" is a shared understanding that the effort is what's crucial. Freedom from bias may be unattainable, but it makes a world of difference whether journalists strive toward it or not. Their striving leads to the place of best conditions for accurate understanding.
Philip K Dick said “reality is that which when you stop believing in it doesn’t go away.“ There may not be such a thing as human objectivity. There is though, an objective reality. It’s our job to try to figure out what it is.
I am not a historian or analyst of the media, so I may be wrong in what I am about to say, but: I thought the marker (and model?) of polarized, emotionalized, even inciteful, news reporting started with the entry of Right-Wing talk radio into the mainstream public--or at least into a broad public listernership--since the 1980's--which PBS discussed back in 2005 (https://archive.pov.org/thefirenexttime/overview-the-rise-of-talk-radio/ ).
A fundamental problem is the superficiality of our public discourse. We don’t’ try to understand the complexity and often contradictory character of things, or to understand them as historically evolving processes; nor do we examine what people think and do in other lands. This makes us vulnerable to extremist tendencies, like demonizing Trump and or a cop who unfortunately has killed a black citizen, without seeking to understand well all the factors that are driving the phenomenon. “Activists” are specialists in exploiting this superficiality.
Thanks so much for having Mike Pesca: he's a good talker, and always a lot of fun.
I've missed him. I was an early daily listener to The Gist, but he lost me in the reaction to the Dobbs Decision. I'm a pro-life person who never has a problem listening to pro-choice arguments, but he went way overboard with the fury and vitriol for days on end (in violation of his own principles as expressed here, I believe) at that time, and lost me. A strange thing about podcasts and social media, at least for me, is that it's easy to form the habit, but hard to go back again if your break it. Mike's old space in my week is now filled by other programs, including Persuasion. It's good to hear him again, though.
On a different point that you discussed, I was an early reader of Slate, from the time Michael Kinsley started it up as a prestige project for Microsoft, and a listener to NPR from the beginning, too. I gradually dropped both, for exactly the reasons that you two laid out, and so can provide an independent confirmation.
Democracy is not the objective. The objective is liberty under law. The right to live and work as we choose, secure from unreasonable interference by both rude strangers and our own government. The form of government is merely a tool for that purpose.
I think what you’re eliding here is that the vast majority of journalists aren’t capable of understanding and thus contextualizing hot button social issues. We don’t live in the era of Marx and Freud any more. The mode of evidence in social science is now statistical and if you don’t understand statistics, you don’t understand much of anything. Instead, what you get is cherry picking of studies for something that “proves” the journalist’s preconceptions, and then sanctimonious preaching.
The ideal of objectivity in public discourse must be saved. An understanding approaching objectivity can be attained, but through comprehensive study, personal encounter with persons of other horizons, and dialogue across civilizations. Approaching objectivity requires sustained intellectual work. Seeking objectivity, with the aspiration to understand and speak the truth, is the moral duty of journalists, academics, intellectuals, and true leaders.
https://charlesmckelvey.substack.com/
More important than using other words for "objective" or "unbiased" is a shared understanding that the effort is what's crucial. Freedom from bias may be unattainable, but it makes a world of difference whether journalists strive toward it or not. Their striving leads to the place of best conditions for accurate understanding.
https://thefamilyproperty.blogspot.com/2023/08/the-oasis-of-principle.html
Philip K Dick said “reality is that which when you stop believing in it doesn’t go away.“ There may not be such a thing as human objectivity. There is though, an objective reality. It’s our job to try to figure out what it is.
I am not a historian or analyst of the media, so I may be wrong in what I am about to say, but: I thought the marker (and model?) of polarized, emotionalized, even inciteful, news reporting started with the entry of Right-Wing talk radio into the mainstream public--or at least into a broad public listernership--since the 1980's--which PBS discussed back in 2005 (https://archive.pov.org/thefirenexttime/overview-the-rise-of-talk-radio/ ).
A fundamental problem is the superficiality of our public discourse. We don’t’ try to understand the complexity and often contradictory character of things, or to understand them as historically evolving processes; nor do we examine what people think and do in other lands. This makes us vulnerable to extremist tendencies, like demonizing Trump and or a cop who unfortunately has killed a black citizen, without seeking to understand well all the factors that are driving the phenomenon. “Activists” are specialists in exploiting this superficiality.
https://charlesmckelvey.substack.com/
Thanks so much for having Mike Pesca: he's a good talker, and always a lot of fun.
I've missed him. I was an early daily listener to The Gist, but he lost me in the reaction to the Dobbs Decision. I'm a pro-life person who never has a problem listening to pro-choice arguments, but he went way overboard with the fury and vitriol for days on end (in violation of his own principles as expressed here, I believe) at that time, and lost me. A strange thing about podcasts and social media, at least for me, is that it's easy to form the habit, but hard to go back again if your break it. Mike's old space in my week is now filled by other programs, including Persuasion. It's good to hear him again, though.
On a different point that you discussed, I was an early reader of Slate, from the time Michael Kinsley started it up as a prestige project for Microsoft, and a listener to NPR from the beginning, too. I gradually dropped both, for exactly the reasons that you two laid out, and so can provide an independent confirmation.