JTT wrote:I applaud your effort, Rayban the centrist man. {no snideness intended whatsoever, just a little joke.}
I suppose I should be happy that you have raised my A2K image a notch but I have a question: Who appointed you the keeper of my image?
JTT wrote:A few points:
It seems somewhat incongruous to me that Mr Tomlinson would commission a specific study of the program, NOW, to "study" whether it was balanced but at the same time HE introduces two programs with a definite right slant.
{not that there's anything wrong with that}
"How," Tomlinson asks, "could any segment of the American people be opposed to commonsense balance?"
How indeed?
Let me also point up the more than slight incongruity of a commission chairperson instituting anything. Is it not the position of a chairperson to take the disinterested view and guide, rather than mandate changes? But I digress. Back to my main point.
Here you indicate you have a main point but what is it?
JTT wrote:Then, as far as I'm aware, at least to this point in time, the results of that study, paid for with public monies, have been kept in secrecy. Shall we say, something just doesn't jive here.
Further, this purported "liberal bias" doesn't seem to square with the results of the CPB's own study, which I've repeated here;
Quote:
It is important to note that a recent survey of the American public commissioned by the CPB, undertaken jointly by a Republican and a Democratic polling firm, found that "the majority of the U.S. adult population does not believe that the news and information programming on public broadcasting is biased." Specifically, 78 percent of the general respondents indicated that NPR did not have a liberal bias.
In another study, the NPR listening audience identified itself as one-third conservative, one-third independent and one-third liberal. And congressional support for public broadcasting is and always has been bipartisan in nature.
Quote:
That's 78%! Who are these people who are complaining? People who don't watch PBS or a very vociferous 22%?
Now here I thought you almost had a point but then you went on to say:
Quote:
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that all points of view shouldn't be aired. I'd LOVE to see proponents of ID lay out their case and defend the same.
What is ID?
JTT wrote:Further, when a varied group of ombudsmen, [who could be more balanced than them; a veritable assemblage of Solomans] rejects the two appointed CPB ombudsmen because their independence is questioned, what does that say about these men/their appointment?
Now The New York Times reports, "An association of news ombudsmen has rejected an attempt by two ombudsmen from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to join their organization as full-fledged members, questioning their independence."
Now here you have a valid point but did you check to see if they provided any evidence to back up their claim that the two PBS ombudsmen hired by Tomlinson were not independent enough. What exactly does "not independent enough actually mean?" Has this group of supposedly independent journalists taken sides in this dogfight? Were they sending a message to the Bush administration that they too are unhappy with the decision to bring some balance to a public information source. Will the MSM report on this slap in the face to two men who happen to be caught in the middle of a public quarrel.
JTT wrote:I would really love to see the results of the private, sorry, public study kept private, of NOW, whatever they are. I'm not afraid of the truth. Bill Moyers wonders why it hasn't been made public.
I couldn't find any evidence one way or the other that the results had been kept secret. Perhaps you could provide a source that would clear this up.
Quote:
Bill Moyers invited Mr Tomlinson to discuss their differences re PBS on air, on PBS, in effect to debate the problem. What could be more open and honest, what could be more fair and balanced than that? Mr Tomlinson has, so far as I'm aware, declined. Puzzling indeed.
I'll take your word for this but is Moyers challange any different than OReilly's challenge for his critics to face him on his program. I ask for a reality check here.
Since you have been less than persuasive in this long list of "almost" points, let me attempt to make a point of my own: Tomlinson stated his opinion that Moyers was guilty of advocacy journalism which I think is a very valid accusation and ample justification for his removal from NOW.
What follows is a fairly accurate definition of advocacy journalism with it's history and examples that brand it as a form of "muckraking" in new clothes.
Advocacy journalism
Advocacy journalism aims to persuade through fact-telling. It rejects the notion of objectivity, instead exposing bias to the reader and expressing explicit opinions on the subject matter. The general goal is to present facts in such a compelling, well-researched manner that even a skeptical reader or one who does not share the writer's opinions, will be swayed to some degree, or at least better informed about the issue at hand.
Advocacy journalism is often practiced in alternative media, including alternative weekly publications. Many of these media outlets have strong political leanings. The genre may extend to a single article in a broader publication; there are also "advocacy journals" or "alternative publications" which announce their intended biases in their mastheads.
One writer for the "alternative" journalism collaborative, the Independent Media Center, writes the following in a call to action: Classic tenets of journalism call for objectivity and neutrality. These are antiquated principles no longer universally observed.... We must absolutely not feel bound by them. If we are ever to create meaningful change, advocacy journalism will be the single most crucial element to enable the necessary organizing. It is therefore very important that we learn how to be successful advocacy journalists. For many, this will require a different way of identifying and pursuing goals.1
In an April, 2000, address to the Canadian Association of Journalists, Sue Careless gave the following commentary and advice to advocacy journalists, which helps to characterize a common view of what journalistic standards the genre should follow.2
* Acknowledge your perspective up front.
* Be truthful, accurate, and credible. Don't spread propaganda, don't take quotes or facts out of context, "don't fabricate or falsify", and "don't fudge or suppress vital facts or present half-truths"
* Don't give your opponents equal time, but don't ignore them, either.
* Explore arguments that challenge your perspective, and report embarrassing facts that support the opposition. Ask critical questions of people who agree with you.
* Avoid slogans, ranting, and polemics. Instead, "articulate complex issues clearly and carefully."
* Be fair and thorough.
* Make use of neutral sources to establish facts.
Careless also criticized the "mainstream media" for unbalanced and politically biased coverage, for economic conflicts of interest, and for neglecting certain public causes. She said that alternative publications have advantages in independence, focus, and access which make them more effective public-interest advocates than the mainstream media.
History
The Crisis, the official magazine of the NAACP, was founded in 1910. It describes itself as inheriting the tradition of advocacy journalism from Freedom's Journal,
http://www.thecrisismagazine.com/history.htm, which began in 1827 as "the first African-American owned and operated newspaper published in the United States."http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/libraryarchives/aanp/freedom/
Muckrakers are often claimed as the professional ancestors of modern advocacy journalists; for example: Nellie Bly, Ida M. Tarbell, Lincoln Steffens, Upton Sinclair, George Seldes, and I.F. Stone.
Objectivity
Main article: Objectivity (journalism)
Advocacy journalists may reject the principle of objectivity in their work for several different reasons.
Many believe that there is no such thing as objective reporting, that there will always be some form of implicit bias, whether political, personal, or metaphysical, and whether intentional or subconscious. This is not necessarily a rejection of the existence of an objective reality, merely a statement about our inability to report on it in a value-free fashion. This may sound like a radical idea, but many mainstream journalists accept the philosophical idea that pure "objectivity" is impossible, but still seek to minimize bias in their work. Other journalistic standards, such as balance, and neutrality, may be used to describe a more practical kind of "objectivity".
"Alternative" critics often charge that the mainstream's media claims of being "bias free" are a harmful because they paper over inevitable (often subconscious) biases, or that they have the effect of advancing certain political ideas which are disguised in an "objective" viewpoint. Critics may contend that the mainstream media reinforce majority-held ideas, marginalizing dissent and harming the larger political and cultural discourse debate and diversity.
The proposed solution is to make biases explicit, with the intention of promoting transparency and self-awareness that better serves media consumers. Advocacy journalists often assume that their audiences will share their biases (especially in politically charged alternative media), or will at least be conscious of them while evaluating what are supposed to be well-researched and persuasive facts.
Some who believe that objective (or balanced, neutral, etc.) reporting is possible, or that it is a laudable goal, do not find that striving for objectivity is always appropriate goal, perhaps depending on the publication and the purpose at hand. For example, it might be argued that when attempting to expose a waste, corruption, or abuse, a neutral position would "get in the way" of the exposition, and a "bias" against this kind of criminal activity would be quite acceptable to the intended audience.
Many advocacy journalists claim that they can reject objectivity while holding on to the goals of fairness and accuracy, and claim that corporate journalists often lack both.
Investigative reporting
Investigative journalism and muckraking might be considered forms of advocacy journalism. Investigative reports often focus on illegal or unethical activity, or aim to advance a generally accepted public interest, such as government accountability, alleviation of human suffering, etc. It might be argued that the journalist is assuming a point of view that public action is warranted to change the situation being described.
Criticism of advocacy journalism
Many professional journalists and many readers find otherwise standards-adhering and well-researched news and documentary work that dispenses with the notion of journalistic objectivity to be "bad journalism", to be a type of "editorializing" (a serious breach of journalistic protocol), or not to be journalism at all (because it does not follow the standards accepted among mainstream journalists).
Some fear that the activity of self-described advocacy journalists to be harmful to the reputation of the mainstream press as an objective, reliable source for information. Another concern is that undiscriminating readers will accept the facts and opinions advanced in advocacy pieces as if they were objective and representative, becoming unknowingly and perhaps dangerously misinformed as a result.
Advocacy journalists vary in their response to these criticisms. Some believe that mainstream and "alternative" outlets serve different purposes, and sometimes different audiences entirely, and that the difference is readily apparent to the public. Many believe that the mainstream press is not an objective and reliable source of information, and so doesn't deserve the reputation it seeks to maintain.
It has been my contention all along on this thread that Moyers was nothing more than an "influence peddler" hiding behind the worthy title of broascast journalist. The definition above of "advocacy journalist" fits Moyers like a glove.
The main point in all the long definition above of "Advocacy Journalism" is this: they reject the long and traditional requirement for objectivity in their reporting and believe that the Professional Journalists Code of Ethics is antiquated and therefore they can justify discarding it
