Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
Is it possible to produce a news story on some controversial subject that is so devoid of bias that everyone from Noam Chomsky to Michael Savage finds it sufficiently fair and impartial? In this article from our December issue, Contributing Editor Greg Beato looks at whether anyone really wants news without a point of view.
New at Reason: Greg Beato on Ridding the News of Spin
Comments to "New at Reason: Greg Beato on Ridding the News of Spin":
There ain't no such thing as objective journalism. I much prefer news sources who clearly identify their bias. Those who pretend to be unbiased simply make it clear that they are hiding their agendas.
vault_dog4 | November 11, 2008, 8:19am | #
An article about journalist bias written by a journalist?Bias!
Untermensch | November 11, 2008, 8:20am | #
Of course people say they want fair and unbiased journalism, by which they mean that they want everyone who disagrees with them to shut up and not sully their objective truth with spin. After all, anyone who disagrees with position X must be a nefarious individual who is concealing his/her real motives...Jason Dolittle | November 11, 2008, 8:29am | #
Well, its gonna be interesting to see where this ends up!Jess
http://www.Privacy-Center.net
Lefiti | November 11, 2008, 8:32am | #
We damn well want news with a fucking point of view when it come to SWAT teams, drug laws,and any fucking thing government does, and don't you forget it. Government is not the solution; it's the fucking problem. Say it again! We fucking hate the government! Got it?If I remember correctly, the idea of "unbiased" journalism started at the turn of the last century when most papers told you their bias upfront -- such as the imaginary examples of the Cincinnati Republican or the Chicago Liberal. Some newspaper mogul figured that he could double his circulations if he tried to relatively unbiased. Thus, a new era in journalism was born.
anarch | November 11, 2008, 8:33am | #
The content of a mathematical discovery?ed | November 11, 2008, 8:49am | #
Keith Olbermann is a Democrat Fluff Boy. But he pretends to be objective. They all do, and they take great offense if you challenge their priesthood. If you want unbiased and unfiltered political news, C-Span is the last clean refuge.Lefiti | November 11, 2008, 8:53am | #
I've shat myself. Who wants to watch me scrub my underwear in the sink?Joel | November 11, 2008, 8:59am | #
Keith Olbermann is a Democrat Fluff Boy. But he pretends to be objective.He does? I must have missed that video.
scotth797 | November 11, 2008, 9:02am | #
I'm not sure which is funnier. My conservative friends who start out their senteneces with *on Fox News last night*. Or my liberal friends who blast Fox, then quote MSNBC or The Daily Show.All of the cable stuff, and the follks in print are entertaining enough, but I hardly take any of it seriously.
However, when I mention C-Span, folks on the left and right balk at it, and go on about how boring it is. Frankly, I think alll the presidential debates should have taken place on it, and all the candidates should do a two hour Q & A with Brian Lamb and the callers.
I would submit that Cspan is completely objective. Any disagreement?
Mo | November 11, 2008, 9:16am | #
Keith Olbermann is a Democrat Fluff Boy. But he pretends to be objective.The only thing sillier would be if he had the motto, "Fair and balanced."
FrBunny | November 11, 2008, 9:19am | #
When trolls outnumber legitimate posters, do legitimate posters become trolls? Discuss.I had such high hopes that the end of the election would bring back the H&R comments section I loved not so long ago...
The problem is not that the news is filled with idiots and morons with biases. It's that these idiots and morons are somehow taken remotely seriously.
Episiarch | November 11, 2008, 9:27am | #
I had such high hopes that the end of the election would bring back the H&R comments section I loved not so long ago...Have no worries: as soon as the final Battlestar Galactica episodes start airing, everything will be back to normal.
I'll admit that it's entertaining to watch Olbermann's clone, Rachel Maddow, perpetuate his schtick, but eventually they'll have to start covering Mr. Obama, the new Teflon President. If only Sarah Palin would shut up for a minute or two, it might force their hand.
jg | November 11, 2008, 9:38am | #
Three cheers for Episiarch who nails my frustration perfectly.By the way, I don't mind that Olbermann spouts off anti-Bush, sophomoric inanity on MSNBC alongside the twit, Chris Matthews, who boldly (or stupidly) admitted his job was to now "help this guy [Obama] any way I can."
It's that I can't even watch Sunday Night Football without Keith's ugly, smarmy mug blithering on, next to also-left-leaning Bob (I-couldn't-be-any-more-boring-if-I-tried) Costas.
There ain't even a sports oasis to render me some peace.
FrBunny | November 11, 2008, 9:38am | #
Have no worries: as soon as the final Battlestar Galactica episodes start airing, everything will be back to normal.I've seen that show. It's about Dumbledore Calrissian, right? Basically a shot-for-shot remake of the original. I like the Wookies and the Klingons the best.
Episiarch | November 11, 2008, 9:46am | #
I've seen that show. It's about Dumbledore Calrissian, right? Basically a shot-for-shot remake of the original. I like the Wookies and the Klingons the best."Bears eat beets. Bears, beets, Battlestar Galactica."
Warren | November 11, 2008, 9:46am | #
If you want to create an effective piece of spin, however, you need sources that are more convincing than think tank quote dispensers. You need bullet-proof statistics. Your rhetorical flair must be underpinned by facts that can’t be disputed even by those who disagree with the conclusions you draw from them.Ha ha ha ha. Oh yeah, that's what infuriates the Rush and O'Reilly detractors. All that hard data and "bullet-proof" statistics backing up their old white men agendas.
Beato's totally off beat (sorry) with this one. In the same way the liberal/conservative paradigm obscures the government power/personal autonomy duality that dichotomy concerns libertarians, the spin/unbiased paradigm is just a distraction from the ubiquity of crappy reporting.
It really is about all that "meticulously and dispassionately research" stuff. Nobody is doing any of that (Radley Balko excepted natch) regardless of their bias or lack there of.
I once asked Brian Lamm why they don't signify which line a caller is on and he ducked the question because he knows the truth. Many Democrats are lying assholes who call on the Independent and Republican lines all the time. The Washington Journal has become three fourths idiotic comments with an occasional relevant point. Kind of like H&R. The house coverage is mostly unfiltered and can be informative and entertaining.
SugarFree | November 11, 2008, 9:50am | #
FrBunny,I think you long for an age that never existed. The trolls will always be with us. They are too threatened by our brilliance and insight to leave us alone.
One funny call was from a guy who proposed the Democrat line have a donkey loge, the GOP line an elephant and the line for the Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich callers a butterfly net.
ed | November 11, 2008, 9:55am | #
Would anyone (who isn't already drunk) care to predict how long Obama's astonishingly long honeymoon* will last?*I know, I know, a "honeymoon" traditionally begins at the inaguration, if not on election day, but let's be honest: Obama and the press have been married since he announced his intentions two years ago. When will they finally turn on him?
Trotter | November 11, 2008, 10:00am | #
I blame the proliferation of the 24/7 cable news environment. There is only so much actual news to report, but the cable networks have to find a way to fill up 24 hours. Hence, the birth of Olbermann, O'Reilly, Colmes, Hannity, Nancy Grace, et al. And, when these "news" shows starting interviewing other "journalists" as news, that's when things really went south.But, there is actually a very easy remedy: STOP WATCHING this garbage!
jg | November 11, 2008, 10:01am | #
ed is correct. In fact, this morning there are national news polls tracking how well Obama has been performing since being elected. No kidding. As of today, upwards of 66% think he's doing a good job.Inanity or insanity? I'm beginning to wonder.
FrBunny | November 11, 2008, 10:03am | #
I think you long for an age that never existed. The trolls will always be with us.You are likely correct. But I miss Dan T, Dondero, etc flailing around trying to make points. It beat the hell out of Edward/Lefiti just vomiting nonsense in between Team Red / Team Blue rants. Not to mention my nemesis: the Ultimate Anonymity guy.
Sigh. Back in MY day...
Episiarch | November 11, 2008, 10:09am | #
Not to mention my nemesis: the Ultimate Anonymity guyI have tried to kill him on numerous occasions, but he's a sneaky bastard and I missed.
FrBunny | November 11, 2008, 10:10am | #
Plus they all used to live in fear of the URKOBOLD. Alas, his iron fist has crumbled of late.bizen | November 11, 2008, 10:14am | #
Thank you. There are now three major 24-hour cable news networks. FOX on the hard right pretending to be balanced, MSNBC on the left not bothering to pretend anymore, and CNN, who struggles mightily to flop around in the center of the two. People have to pick their poison.If a person wants to figure out what's going on in the world they have be curious and ask the hard questions for themselves and then seek the answers from different sources (including world views) rather than being reliant upon one news source. It's a click and a few paragraphs away.
Or they can sit on the couch and watch Olberman or Hannity and drink in the propaganda, which is what I suspect most people do.
I do have one more thing to add here - FOX has been doing this crap for years and no one in the media called them on it outright. Now that the other networks are showing some clear bias, suddenly it's a bad thing again? I think FOX is once again driving a non-existent story. Once upon a time at the beginning of the Bush administration, none of the networks said a single bad thing about him except for Olberman. He was one of the few lone voices willing to criticize Bush for the mess that we now find ourselves in.
I think it's time to take a hard look at the last eight years so that we don't find ourselves stuck in that hard right place again in the future.
ColumbusGuy | November 11, 2008, 10:17am | #
"SPIN" is just a cover word for lie...As in "Double Speak"
YES we are there, And NO,
It did not start in 1984....
I started carrying and reading newspapers at age 11 in 1951..
Truman, Korea, Sam Shepard, Ike.
After the Navy and Nam;
I worked 40 years in that industry...
Trust me;
The "NEWS" has NEVER, EVER been Un-Biased...
So people never knew,What they did not know...
But today after years of seeing "the center" of discussion and any balance pushed so far to "the right" (or wrong; depending on your point of view), that truth and common ground became un-recognizable, we are at last "starting" to see a sort of street smart point of view again emerge.
So expect growing pains...
Driven by the internet and a desperation for answers, the result has been to take the ball away from the economic, political and religious propaganda masters that ruled,("knew what was best"and abused it), and hand it back to the market place of ideas where it belongs.
The maturity of any people lies in the TRUTH...
My experience tells me, The closer we get to the common ground of a common truth, rather than that of a common rhetoric, the more we will discover;
"What WE Did Not Know",
Or, What we did not want to know....
Think of it as;
If Oberman et/al are too liberal;
Then there is no middle..
If Limbaugh et/al do not lie;
Then there is no truth...
So forgive "The True Believers"...
They did not know what they don't know...
Just as it was at Jonestown...
You only need to read 1Corinthians 13;
To know;
WHAT IS IMPORTANT and WHAT IS TRUE...
And then practice it...
You may not get a 2nd chance in your lifetime to ever again see this moment.
Do not let it slip away,as it did in the 1960s
There is far less wrong with wealth,
than there is with the abuse of wealth...
FrBunny | November 11, 2008, 10:18am | #
FOX has been doing this crap for years and no one in the media called them on it.Huh? In what world has FOX not been labeled as far-right from the very beginning?
SugarFree | November 11, 2008, 10:23am | #
FrBunny,Dan T's still here. You just have to spot him. He goes by at least three names by my count. (I don't want him to change names again, but he's not hard to spot... same claptrap he's always spouted.)
It's the Lew Rockwell crybabies and Truthers that I can't stand.
bizen | November 11, 2008, 10:24am | #
Huh? In what world has FOX not been labeled as far-right from the very beginning?Actually, you are right. They are labeled as such. I think what I meant to say is that they were still given credence as a serious news organization - As if they were more than a public relations firm for the GOP. I'm talking about the years in the lead up to the Iraq war when the media was silent in opposition to the war. Serious news organizations allowed FOX to drive the stories and the agenda even though they were little more than mouthpieces for the party in power.
Urkobold™ | November 11, 2008, 10:31am | #
FRBUNNY, YOU FOOL, THE URKOBOLD'S IRON FIST SHALL NEVER CRUMBLE! HOWEVER, IT DOES OCCASIONALLY STRAY TO OTHER, MORE PROSAIC OCCUPATIONS, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE WEIBSKOBOLD IS OUT OF TOWN, VISITING HER FAMILY IN COLUMBIA.THE URKOBOLD CANNOT ABIDE IN-LAWS.
J sub D | November 11, 2008, 10:32am | #
The content of a mathematical discovery?The __________ work's impact on topology is considered by many mathematicians to be __________.
A) Groundbreaking/major
B) Superfluous/minor
C) Ingenious/largely irrelevant
D) Scholarly/somewhat influential
Nope.
Scott | November 11, 2008, 10:32am | #
MSNBC just announced that they extended Keith Olbermann's contract another four years.It doesn't matter if anybody wants partisan "news." It only matters that someone is willing to pay for it.
OT: The hallmark of a troll is that they puncutate their posts with onomotopoeic laughter. They probably also masturbate a lot too.
Mr. Drysdale | November 11, 2008, 10:42am | #
Actually, as variation on Warren's point, why couldn't a truly objective media dig into statistics and run down facts in the manner that Beato claims spinners do? I fail to see how spinning gives you an edge in this department.J sub D | November 11, 2008, 10:42am | #
I would submit that Cspan is completely objective. Any disagreement?I've seen Brian Lamb himself hang up on racist callers spouting there ignorant nonsense. C-SPAN is so good I am constantltly amazed that it even exists yet pure objectivity is impossible, even for C-SPAN.
The comment upstream recommending Brian Lamb and his callers running the presidential debates has my complete agreement.
FrBunny | November 11, 2008, 10:45am | #
Awesome. We need some all-caps justice meted out around here.ed | November 11, 2008, 10:47am | #
Olbermann has signed on to continue hosting "Countdown" each weeknight at 8 o'clock EST...MSNBC has built its prime time in Olbermann's image, hiring Rachel Maddow—a frequent Olbermann guest—for a successful 9 p.m. show. Olbermann's telecast is repeated each weeknight at 10.So Maddow, a lesbian, is the creamy center of a gayish Olbermann Oreo.
That's entertainment!
I Hate My Own Penis | November 11, 2008, 10:49am | #
Maddow is HAWT!TallDave | November 11, 2008, 11:13am | #
It's impossible to have unbiased news coverage. We can, however, have honesty.What they need to do is start putting a (D) or (R) after each newcaster's name. They should do the same in the credits for the producers and etc.
When people hear a politician make a statement, they know how to interpret based on the party affiliation. The same should be true for news.
Ted "I Married A Communist Propagandist" Turner | November 11, 2008, 11:18am | #
CNN, who struggles mightily to flop around in the center of the twoROFL?
ed | November 11, 2008, 11:37am | #
What they need to do is start putting a (D) or (R) after each newcaster's nameBetter yet, stop identifying politicians by their party affiliations. You wanna see chaos? What will the knee-jerking public do without that handy little letter? Be forced to actually think?
prolefeed | November 11, 2008, 11:37am | #
No such thing as unbiased reporting. If, for example, you try to hit the middle ground between the liberal and conservative spin on things, and not favor either part of that spectrum, you're biasing toward centrist statism, since you're leaving out the libertarian POV.And if, somehow, you do the impossible and write an article that almost everyone thinks is devoid of spin, WHICH topics you choose to write about and which you ignore counts as bias.
About the closest thing to unbiased is someone who tries to stick to stating things that are objectively true, and then trying to get quotes that illustrate the POV of people from all over the political spectrum. But, hell, I prefer my news with a libertarian bias. I dropped all my other magazine subscriptions and just get Reason and Liberty magazines now, so I don't have to endure center-left statism parading as unbiased objectivity.
prolefeed | November 11, 2008, 11:43am | #
What they need to do is start putting a (D) or (R) after each newcaster's nameBetter yet, stop identifying politicians by their party affiliations. You wanna see chaos? What will the knee-jerking public do without that handy little letter? Be forced to actually think?
What you'd get is partisan R and D politicians trying even more than now to pretend to be all things to all people, then getting into office and being anything but.
Our political system is kleptocratic mob rule. Half the people are busy trying to vote themselves access to the other half's money, with the politicians supposed representing each side stealing from both. Until we switch from 50% votes needed to make an appropriation to 90 - 95% approval needed, you're gonna have these layers of parasite-host relationship continuing.
economist | November 11, 2008, 11:57am | #
I love spin. I enjoy making fun of Hannity, Olbermann, and their ilk.Winthorpe | November 11, 2008, 12:04pm | #
Would it be fair to say that people of the left tend to be more prone to claiming objectivity? Or am I just being biased again.I agree with the main point though; one of my hobbies is going on The Guardian website and pretending to be a redneck. It's like Ultimate Sports Fishing. They just keep on biting.
Objective news doesn't fuel my prejudice so what good is it to me eh?
R C Dean | November 11, 2008, 12:05pm | #
I think what I meant to say is that they were still given credence as a serious news organizationWhy not? They're as serious as anyone else who claims that title.
Mike Laursen | November 11, 2008, 12:06pm | #
Human beings are incapable of being 100% objective. With the exception of Ayn Rand, of course.scotth797 | November 11, 2008, 12:08pm | #
But, there is actually a very easy remedy: STOP WATCHING this garbage!>>So two months before the election, I added up the number of hours I spent watching cable news, reading blogs, radio, etc. It came to about thirty hours a week. I've been doing this for well over a decade.
Turned it all off, and haven't been back- except for Reason. When I speak to friends, I sound like one of those guys who love sobriety. Hopefully I won't go Gary Busey on my friends and family.
Mike Laursen | November 11, 2008, 12:09pm | #
I had such high hopes that the end of the election would bring back the H&R comments section I loved not so long ago...When was this Golden Age of Troll-Free H&R?
Citizen Nothing | November 11, 2008, 12:33pm | #
I've been able to avoid all things political since I've gotten a cushy features gig at my paper. Now I've pulled a Saturday shift and, guess what, I'm assigned to cover the provisional vote count that day that'll determine a seat in Congress. I feel queasy. But at least I AM objective. I really don't care which of the, ahem, two fine candidates wins.R C Dean | November 11, 2008, 12:43pm | #
There is only so much actual news to report, but the cable networks have to find a way to fill up 24 hours.It would be a big start of filling those hours with something other than half-educated twaddle if they would report on something other than the same six stories in tight rotation.
Nothing pisses me off more than some cable news blow-dry saying "we're out of time" after giving thirty seconds to the same story they gave the same thirty seconds to fifteen minutes ago.
joe | November 11, 2008, 1:04pm | #
With each report of a reporter being fired or a loss of circulation by M$M America comes one step closer to being a nation more closely resembling what our founding fathers invisioned.The M$M has become nothing more than the propaganda organ of the left in this nation. They just helped elect a Marxist to be POTUS.
Gramscian Memes | November 11, 2008, 1:13pm | #
Would it be fair to say that people of the left tend to be more prone to claiming objectivity?Of course. They've always had an undisguised agenda of taking control of the institutions of thought control -- schools, news media -- and using them to promote their agenda.
They tend to see 1984 as more of an instruction manual than a cautionary tale.
Kolohe | November 11, 2008, 2:48pm | #
If you want to create an effective piece of spin, however, you need sources that are more convincing than think tank quote dispensers. You need bullet-proof statistics. Your rhetorical flair must be underpinned by facts that can’t be disputed even by those who disagree with the conclusions you draw from them.Warren already covered this, but the sad fact is you do *not* need Kevlar on your facts for them to be effective spin.
Mike Laursen | November 11, 2008, 3:49pm | #
The M$M has become nothing more than the propaganda organ of the left in this nation. They just helped elect a Marxist to be POTUS.Woh, is this a namespace collision? I'm gonna assume that you're a new commenter who doesn't know that we already have a much-beloved commenter, "joe", who would never, ever say something like what you just said.
flygate | November 11, 2008, 3:58pm | #
Would anyone (who isn't already drunk) care to predict how long Obama's astonishingly long honeymoon* will last?...When will they finally turn on him?They won't. Why would they? He and they are one, ideologically, and his, um, cultural background makes him ideal as their avatar.
Mike Laursen | November 11, 2008, 4:20pm | #
I live in liberal country, so I know a lot of typical members of Obama's base. They won't turn on him. He and his family are good-looking and charismatic, and his base are willing to give him a pass on a lot of shortcomings in delivering on his promises.Puck | November 11, 2008, 5:16pm | #
I'm pretty far to the right, and I can't stand Fox lately. Even they are fluffing Obama big time since the end of the election. All up in his grill and shining it up for him real good.Neu Mejican | November 11, 2008, 6:52pm | #
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-SPAN#Allegations_of_bias_and_other_controversiesI like C-SPAN...not sure I buy an "unbiased" claim.
The word people want isn't "objective" it is "disinterested," I want to get my news from someone who doesn't have a stake in the outcome of a particular issue.
Nothing wrong with editorializing...but the blurring between facts and opinions that has become the staple of much of cable is annoying.
Hannity is not a reporter.
He is not a news anchor.
Neither is Olberman or Beck.
jg | November 12, 2008, 9:44am | #
Here's some "spin" for today:CNN reporting that according to its latest poll, "72% of Americans polls believe that President Elect Obama will fix the economy."
No, not that 72% believe that the economy will get better but, rather, they believe OBAMA WILL FIX IT. Not you, not Congress, not business owners, not taxpayers.
Obama. He will save you.
economist | November 12, 2008, 10:30am | #
The high priesthood of the Obama is considering the approval of a book of hymns. However, we are considering changing some aspects of his life story. For example, we're going to say that his was a virgin birth, and use it as proof that God is black.Strange. I can read a piece and see that it is slanted one way or the other, again it is another thing to change it to bring it into the middle. Most times I find my own leanings creaping into the piece. and then back again. I remember an art. from a year ago that was several pars. long and the only thing that I could find that I could change was in the set. " 16 more sol died today in Irac " the word more interested me to the point that I could find a change just by taking out the word and making the whole set. seem less judemental. I can tell you that it is much easier to see it, then fix it. I may try to look as some and see if there is a diffference btwn jurln. and reporters exp. ones and new comers. I have found that when you try to discuss something it usel. goes right down the dumper if the two sides are quite equal. and to be truthfull it is more fun to get every body all rilled up to. That is why I think to be informed you need many different aves. of input to get the info that you need