Not long ago, a reader asked if I was a blogger or a journalist. The implication seemed to be that bloggers don’t necessarily adhere to the “laws” of journalism, such as objectivity and the relentless pursuit of the facts.
That’s the kind of question you typically hear from academics – professors and students who haven’t any dirt under their fingernails. Because in the real world, there’s no such thing as objective journalism. And by the real world, I’m talking about people who have been paying their bills for the past few years solely on the proceeds of the profession.
Now you can expect a big backlash from such a suggestion. There’ll be plenty of journalists who insist that they are indeed objective. I say find me one. Any soccer journalists, for example, who refers to Barcelona’s style of play as beautiful cannot claim to be objective. By judging that club’s style of play as beautiful, they are injecting their own views and opinions on the story they are covering. They’re allowing matters of personal taste to taint their story, deeming teams that play a more conservative style somehow uglier than sides like Barcelona.
Of course these journalists will be reluctant to admit this. Many of them know this to be true, but many others are in complete denial. People – not just journalists – like to think of themselves as objective. And for those who aren’t even moderately introspective (which, let’s face it, is probably the bulk of our society), it’s an easy mistake to make. They are so confident that their views are the undisputable truth that whatever they say must be objective, since – they believe – their opinions are indeed the facts.
The closest thing you’ll find to objective journalism these days is a wire service report. And even those can be skewed, as things like injustice – and even atrocity – can be in the eye of the beholder (or, in this case, reporter). For example, the crackdown in Tiananmen Square wasn’t viewed as an atrocity by China’s State News Service, Xinhua, because the Chinese government considered those protestors a credible threat to national security. Just as some Western wire services reported government crackdowns in Pinochet’s Chile, as an example, as justified actions against “insurgents” and “terrorists” threatening law and order.
There has long been an assumption of objectivity in American journalism. And self-respecting journalists (and bloggers) still strive to avoid “malicious bias.” We don’t want to deliberately mislead our audience. But in the mid-80s, boosted by cable networks like CNN, televised newscasts became increasingly competitive, driven more by ratings – and profits – than by a responsibility to serve the public. The gloves came off, and much of the journalistic world followed suit. Of course network newscasts have lost more than half their audience since then, with the average age of evening news viewers now near 60.
In order to compete, the news has evolved into entertainment. And if you don’t believe me, pick up a paper or turn on your TV. Most of what you’ll see is designed to either catch your attention or differentiate the “news” outlet from the competition. Legitimate news has taken a back seat to “wowing” the audience.
And with the Internet revolution, things have only gotten worse. Information has become a commodity. Suddenly anyone and everyone could claim to be a journalist, with a potential worldwide audience at their fingertips. Faced with a glut of competition, often geared to deliver the “product” faster and cheaper, along with a drastically diffused advertising base, established news organizations laid off reporters like a sinking ship. Many of these reporters then took to the Internet, creating even more competition.
And the advent of social networking sites have leveled the field even further. Whereas a newspaper editor used to sift through wire stories to determine which ones to share with the readers, today most people sift through “stories” they see online to determine which they should share with their “readers” on Facebook and Twitter. In effect, we have all become our own journalists, telling our friends stories that we consider interesting or essential (and rarely with even a hint of objectivity).
So am I journalist or a blogger? Frankly, I don’t see much of a difference between the two. Journalists, in the traditional sense, are assumed to have more experience, greater objectivity, and a wider audience. Bloggers are often viewed more as vain curmudgeons or fanatical ombudsmen hammering out their own agenda for a skewed audience who already share their views. But by that definition, Glen Beck is a blogger and Arianna Huffington is a journalist.
Personally, I embrace the entertainment aspect of today’s jouranlogging world. If you simply wanted to find out soccer scores or stats, there are plenty of sites that already offer that. And they are well-funded and have abundant staff who can get that sort of information to you faster and in a more efficient format.
What I hope to offer is a more colorful look at the game. Yes, I have bias towards certain leagues, teams, and players. But I don’t let my personal preference for Real Madrid, for example, taint my praise for the brilliance of Barcelona. And even though I prefer Arsenal in England, I still take great delight in mocking Nicklas Bendtner, the George W. Bush of professional soccer.
And there I go, comparing a player whose self-assessment is so far from his actual abilities to a politician whose self-assessment was so far from his actual abilities. That’s certainly not being objective. But it is funny, and hopefully makes you think – and not just about the game.
I also lean towards what’s been widely described as new journalism, often associated with the likes of Hunter S. Thompson, Tom Wolfe, and George Plimpton. The stories tend to be more literary and subjective, using humor and personal experiences to entertain and educate the reader.
I consider this approach to be more honest and effective than traditional journalism, which does its best to mask its inherent subjectivity and entertainment qualities. Just like me, they are trying to capture your attention and sell you their point of view. The only difference is that I’m being honest about it, which hopefully enables me to be more entertaining – and therefore a better read.
“The purpose of art is to inform and delight.” – Quintus Horatius Flaccus
The Origins of This Blog How to Contact Us
All content is © All Rights Reserved. None of it – neither the text nor imagery – should be reproduced in any way, and unauthorized use is strictly prohibited.
