Woah . . . okay, Chicago Tribune, what do you think you're doing?
I mean, it's one thing for news stations to quietly support candidates through manipulation of news stories and propaganda, but it's entirely another to just come out and endorse a presidential candidate.
In a Chicago Tribune editorial board article on October 17th, the paper just came out and said it:
"On Nov. 4 we're going to elect a president to lead us through a perilous time and restore in us a common sense of national purpose.
The strongest candidate to do that is Sen. Barack Obama. The Tribune is proud to endorse him today for president of the United States."
When I read the Tribune's article, I was surprised. Of course I'm used to the subtle jabs at candidates and policies the different news stations make, but this degree of transparency was unprecedented in my limited news media experience.
The first thought that came to mind was: Can they do that?
I think that, as usual, there are good and bad things on both sides of the argument. On the one hand, the media is supposed to at least try to be objective. It's in the Journalist's Creed, after all. It's what we argue about in class incessantly.
But on the other hand, humans have prejudices and are incapable of being completely fair, balanced, and objective. The very nature of humanity is subjectivity, and since humans are who are in charge of the news, is it best that we just admit our flaws? Since we are incapable of being absolutely objective, should we just cast the tired facade of fairness aside, let our struggles with the truth cease, and be completely transparent in our prejudices?
Or do we owe the people more than just our own opinions backed by whatever facts we see fit to include? Should we at least try, even when we know we can never absolutely succeed in our attempts at objectivity and truth?
What does everyone think? I'm torn--I applaud the Tribune's transparency, yet I wish that the media could be as objective as they claim to be. Should they keep trying--should we keep trying? Or is it silly to pretend that we can ever be more than the subjective, prejudiced humans we all know we are?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
While it shocked me to hear this endorsement, I believe that the Chicago Tribune is free to do what they wish since it is their newspaper. However, I don't believe that it is right to completely do away with objectivity. Unfortunately, I see more newspapers following the Chicago Tribune's example. Newspapers with focus on a specific audience and the people will chose, like they do today, what newspaper shares the same opinion with them. This is a shame though because this means people will not be as educated since they will be avoiding half of the story.
wow! I too am shocked at the Tribune's announcement! I know many (probably most) papers tend to lean one way or the other when it comes to elections, but i think that might have been a little too bold for my taste. I wonder if they lost any readers because of that?
Post a Comment