DISQUS

pari · 1 year ago

I think the new AP approach is indicative of what's happening with the media in general. Fewer and fewer people are turning to the "news" to get information. Instead, they rely on the news with a twist -- it needs to come from their particular bias as consumers -- so that our country will end up being even more polarized and less inclined or able to understand diverse viewpoints.

I know I've lost faith in reporting overall and go to both "liberal" blogs and at least three different newspapers before trying to form an opinion.

Fair, balanced, unbiased -- all of these noble words seem to no longer be the main goal.

markp · 1 year ago

I agree with the complaint - that the AP no longer cares about an objective facts but instead presents subjective opinions and pretends they are objective.
What surprises me is that you have only now caught onto this! The polls that came out, what, a week ago (?) showed that (this is from memory, so don't quote me on it) about 50% of Americans believe that the media in general is rooting for Obama, about 8% thought the same about McKain, and only thirty-something percent thought that the media was actually being "fair."

Welcome to enlightenment!

genegrant · 1 year ago

Arthur! Wonderful post.

I can't recall who said it on a chat show a couple of weeks ago, but his prediction that one of the aftermaths of this campaign season is we will look back at 2008 as "The Year Journalism Died."

I expect this to be a rising tide of opinion as the end nears.

PLEASE stay on this. You are, to my mind, the one who can lean on this credibly.

We are yet again at one of those points in the business and for a fantastically interesting read on the idea of "objectivity," The Columbia Journalism Review did a cover story called, "Re-thinking Objectivity," (in '03!) that is a must read for news nerds. Note the second section "Tripping Toward The Truth," on the history of how being objective has bobbed and weaved through journalistic history.

It's a primer for what is happening now.

http://cjrarchives.org/issues/2003/4/objective-...

arthur · 1 year ago

Pari: Thank you, first, for putting me on the road to the AP story last week with the link to mediamatters.com. Re your comment above: yes, it's tricky figuring out what's really going on. I prefer those who put their biases up front. And like you, I find it helps to get information from more than one place. Also, to keep myself honest, I consult sources who start from different premises. (Not too often, though, for fear they'll pull me over to the Dark Side!)

markp: You are quite right. I was slow to catch on to the new AP. Mea culpa. But polls showing what most Americans think of "the media" don't impress me. First, because the polls and the Americans both accept the existence of one thing called "the media." I don't.
Look: Fox works for the GOP. ABC, NBC and CBS seem confused and fearful except in their relentless pursuit of mediocrity. MSNBC is liberal but employs Pat Buchanan. CNN will do almost anything for better ratings. PBS science and documentary programs are dynamite, but its news is "on one hand this, on the other, that, time will tell." The New York Times often is liberal - whatever that means - but it allowed Judith Miller to recycle White House disinformation on Iraq. Also, the Times hired Bill Kristol, the brilliant neo-con who urged that we ignore the silly idea Shiites and Sunnis might dislike each other. Oh, and talk radio is right-wing politics or religion of the "Jesus hates" variety. And I haven't mentioned national magazines or local papers or blogs or the New Mexico Independent. My point - it's complicated.

Gene Grant: Thanks for the vote of confidence. I will keep noodling the issues. I do remember that CJR issue and we certainly should continue to rethink objectivity. But with or without the word, I figure journalism must always demand accuracy and fairness.

Arthur Alpert

bleve · 1 year ago

And in mentioning Bill Kristol, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Kristol, I think it only fair to readers to point out that this gentleman, a member of our mainstream media, had a tangible stake in the Iraq war... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_a_new_...

katestone · 1 year ago

The AP began to change when Lou Boccardi retired as president and Tom Curley, formerly of USA Today, took his place. The board changed. There was a major reshuffling in New York, many excellent bureau chiefs were pushed out or left due to state consolidation, and the Washington bureau changed completely. Interestingly, the AP is losing membership and some members are complaining loudly about Fournier. The old objective AP is no more and its members have to make a decision whether or not to stay with that news service or look elsewhere.

katestone · 1 year ago

I forgot to add a comment on "objectivity." Many people don't realize that the AP is a nonprofit membership organization, a news service. I always counted on AP objectivity. If I want commentary I will read a columnist or an editorial page -- otherwise, give me straight news and I will make up my own mind. When the AP starts to blend reporting with commentary then newspaper readers, a decided minority these days, have lost the ability to read straight news reporting. Bloomberg is now attracting highly competent reporters and editors and expanding their news service. With Bloomberg, the LA Times, the NY Times and McClachy providing straight news reporting to their members newspapers should reconsider their dependence on the AP.

arthur · 1 year ago

Thanks, KateStone, for dating AP's transformation to Lou Boccardi's resignation as president Since he quit in 2003, we now know exactly how slow I was to pick up on the story. Further, since Lou and I sat together as reporters in the World-Telegram & Sun newsroom in ...well, er...a few years back, we also are reminded that I'm ancient. Thanks, I needed that.
Arthur Alpert