Basically that (real) journalism will only live in exile?
Perhaps a better way to think of this is that journalism will cut its dependence on, and allegiance to, a nation state. When the internet came along, many national newspapers tried to become global papers, but without losing their geographic ties to one location, and their connections with government in that location.
A journalism with ties to the established parties can still be "real journalism" if you have a strong democracy in general.
I think the strong ties to established parties are exactly the problem with mainstream outlets, particularly in the United States - they inevitably lead to spiked stories, damage control via official leaks off the record, and the management of the news cycle by politicians. This has been the case for a long time, in every country, and is not limited to the current state of the US (though it has perhaps reached an extreme form there). Establishment journalism simply can't afford to take on government of the nation it primarily covers.
To take a couple of examples of established news outlets - the NYT and the Guardian, despite their best efforts, are still quite parochial in their view of events across the globe. The NYT is reluctant to significantly and persistently challenge the US administration, because it would make it far more difficult for them to cover domestic news, and because for domestic consumption it's not acceptable to criticise wartime activities (for example) too heavily. The Guardian still vilifies local Conservative right-wing politicians (in the pictures they choose, in the language they use when covering them), and goes easier on those from the Labour or LibDem party - policy is actually irrelevant to this kind of partisan outlook, apparently it's simply engrained in their editorial outlook - it's like a badge of honour, an unquestioned allegiance. It is also reluctant to criticise UK forces abroad or GCHQ involvement in spying (as opposed to the US, which they're more than happy to criticise). These old labels of left and right etc don't mean much, or shouldn't mean much, to citizens, who should be looking at the actual policies. Personally I find the jingoism, nationalism and partisan reporting inherent in national news annoying and distracting.
It's far harder for these newspapers to drop their existing ties to physical space, local politics, and a nation state, than it will be for newer companies founded on the internet to ignore national affiliations and become truly global organisations. A new international news won't care what the established political parties and pundits have to say on a particular issue, but does care what reporters on the ground and citizens on the ground in that country have to say, and how it contrasts with the governing party's narrative (and often the stories our governments tell us via news organisations, presented without question or fact-checking, are clearly a constructed narrative, with bad guys and good guys, for example on the killing of 16 year old Abdulrahman al-Awlaki (reported as 21 one year old terrorist), or the cruise missile strike on al-Ma'jalah (women and children reported as a terrorist training camp, cruise missiles reported as Yemeni air force)). It's very difficult to make that kind of news if you also want to be part of the White House press pool (or equivalent in other countries), have limited access, and rely on simply reporting verbatim the unreliable statements of US allies like Yemen. Compare and contrast these reports:
The lie was printed right after the events, based solely on US and Yemeni gov statements, but the truth was almost the exact opposite of the story relayed by the NYTimes here. They do not often simply relay stories from the North Korean, Russian or Chinese government without question like this.
I'm sure there will have been an nytimes article correcting this at some point when the truth came out, though I can't find it specifically, and by then it's too late. Much of the criticism of the administration in the nytimes is written by outsiders (not journalists), relegated to the op-ed pages, and labelled as 'opinion', when it in fact contains more truth than the official reporting.
"it's simply engrained in their editorial outlook"
As far as I can see, in the UK we have a wide spectrum of "editorial outlook" in newspapers while the TV news channels (much to the disgust of Murdoch) are legally required to provide neutrality and impartial, unbiased coverage (and I know some people think the BBC is the last stronghold of communism).
Yes Prime Minister explained the newspaper market in the UK pretty well:
As far as I can see, in the UK we have a wide spectrum of "editorial outlook" in newspapers
I think we should move on from 'editorial outlook' based on allegiance to domestic political parties, and support a new sort of journalism which does not have allegiance to any one party or political state, does not have a predefined outlook, but instead feels free to attempt to publish the truth, however uncomfortable that may be for whatever party is in power. Opinion backed by strong reporting and facts should not be separated from news (because in reality even supposedly neutral or impartial reporting has strong biases and is often not based on verified fact but on relaying government statements), and it should not be based on which country your news org covers, what the government of that country wants to hear, or indeed what the people of that country wants to hear.
Re TV news, I don't accept it is any less constrained by issues of ownership and nationality than newspapers. The ban on Sinn Féin reporting in the 80s, the breathless coverage of the Falklands war and then the Iraq wars, the lack of coverage of the GCHQ scandal, the backing of one political party by Sky News, the embedding of journalists like Rebekah Brooks with politicians in their social life, all point to news services which are far too closely connected to the governments they cover in the UK. In the case of the BBC, they are regularly threatened with cuts in funding by whatever government is in power, and they simply can't afford to criticise the government in a sustained way. They have not for example reported significantly on the GCHQ stories, except to repeat government statements and reporting in other news outlets. I suspect a truly international news organisation would have no such qualms and would have covered it extensively.
"Neutral" reporting is a fantasy. None of us are capable of fully breaking away from our viewpoints, and editorial boards are made up of people who are biased.
How do you even define neutral in a way that does not simply justify a specific set of biases?
Something as simple as which news items you choose betrays huge biases: Do you write about the US government shutdown, or about the thousands of people dying of preventable diseases every day.
Word choices: Do you call something a coup, or a revolution? Do you call someone terrorists, or freedom fighters?
In many cases, there are many seemingly "neutral" choices, and many word choices that are technically correct, and what will seem "neutral" to you will be hopelessly politically slanted to others.
I'd much rather have media organizations of a variety of viewpoints that are honest about where they stand than someone that pretend to be objectively neutral.
I don't feel you should completely dismiss neutrality and empathy - we need more openness from our news, not less. Journalists IMO should strive for neutrality and distance (knowing they will never attain it), particularly distance from the culture, nation and media which they were born to. They should question the narratives (often delivered pre-made), and use of words they are given in a press release, not relay it, and they should make clear their own biases to readers, at the same time as striving to see the situation from various points of view, not only their own, or the one they were brought up with. They should strive for this this because it brings empathy and understanding, in a way that completely ignoring neutrality and picking a side in often polarised conflicts does not. It is impossible not to have sympathies, but journalists should also try to put their sympathies to one side at least until they have a good picture of the facts on the ground and can form an opinion.
In the example you give, we have lots of terms for the participants in asymmetric warfare, all employed to taint debate before it starts:
IMO the acronym or name chosen by the fighters/armies themselves would be best in each case, rather than a label dreamed up by the military which opposes them - it also stops lazy reporting which groups disparate groups together as one enemy.
I'd rather news didn't have a pre-decided viewpoint/agenda which they try to cut the facts to fit, which is often what partial news or 'op-ed' turns out to be when written by professional columnists. We should not have a liberal view or a right-wing view, we should have journalists who approach each story with an open spirit and actually do the journalism required to come up with an informed opinion and transmit that. That hard work should come before they have an opinion on any story.
Agree completely. I stopped reading the article as soon as he claimed he worked for news organizations that were "impartial". It's amazing that they fail to see just how biased their impartiality really is.
To be completely neutral would mean you only state facts that have real meaning in the physical world, not in our heads.
For instance, the mere mention of a "nation" is a bias, because nations do not have a real physical existence, they are merely ideas created by man, and which many other man has decided to go along with, but there are a few who disagree. Our entire social structure is built around ideas, but all reporting talks about these ideas like they're real, irrefutable concepts. You can't be impartial until you're open minded enough to reject any idea and accept possible alternatives.
I can recommend Nick Robinson's excellent book "Live from Downing Street" - this reminded me just how unpopular the BBC was with the Conservative government in the 1980s and the Labour government after '97.
Edit: At home we've been getting free Guardians from Waitrose - this has actually resulted in us buying some "right wing" newspapers to try and get a bit of perspective, my wife liked the Daily Telegraph but did concede she had gone too far by buying a Daily Mail (the Scottish edition) - which she described as "utter trash".
At home we've been getting free Guardians from Waitrose - this has actually resulted in us buying some "right wing" newspapers to try and get a bit of perspective
This is what I think is wrong with an attempt to choose a side - reporting should attempt to get to the truth on every topic, consulting experts in the domain (i.e. not politicians), going to sources, not an attempt to reflect the party political position or editorial line - that leads to distortion, and to people trying to somehow even out their news by getting two equally invalid opinions. The Guardian should be applauded for what it gets right (say the NSA reporting), but sometimes it's as distorted as RussiaToday when it comes to certain topics, and on some topics (Britain at war) it is just as parochial as its counterparts.
Perhaps a better way to think of this is that journalism will cut its dependence on, and allegiance to, a nation state.
Yeah, like Edward Snowden ... except wait, he depended on the willingness of Russia and China to host (which I am glad for even if I understand them pretty egregiously oppressive in other ways).
So no, no we won't live in some cyberpunk utopia. Your whole argument reminds me of the 1990's soft-focus view of the "Internet future". Journalists are if anything more dependent on some nation state today than previously (RT, Al-jazeera, Glen Greenwald and fricken US-state-sponsored Democracy Now, all are dependent some on some state, some more directly than others). That is because if Snowden stuff says anything, it says that anyone with a (information) "pipe" running through their "yard" had start tapping that pipe for their benefit because that's what the largest actors are doing).
Perhaps a better way to think of this is that journalism will cut its dependence on, and allegiance to, a nation state. When the internet came along, many national newspapers tried to become global papers, but without losing their geographic ties to one location, and their connections with government in that location.
A journalism with ties to the established parties can still be "real journalism" if you have a strong democracy in general.
I think the strong ties to established parties are exactly the problem with mainstream outlets, particularly in the United States - they inevitably lead to spiked stories, damage control via official leaks off the record, and the management of the news cycle by politicians. This has been the case for a long time, in every country, and is not limited to the current state of the US (though it has perhaps reached an extreme form there). Establishment journalism simply can't afford to take on government of the nation it primarily covers.
To take a couple of examples of established news outlets - the NYT and the Guardian, despite their best efforts, are still quite parochial in their view of events across the globe. The NYT is reluctant to significantly and persistently challenge the US administration, because it would make it far more difficult for them to cover domestic news, and because for domestic consumption it's not acceptable to criticise wartime activities (for example) too heavily. The Guardian still vilifies local Conservative right-wing politicians (in the pictures they choose, in the language they use when covering them), and goes easier on those from the Labour or LibDem party - policy is actually irrelevant to this kind of partisan outlook, apparently it's simply engrained in their editorial outlook - it's like a badge of honour, an unquestioned allegiance. It is also reluctant to criticise UK forces abroad or GCHQ involvement in spying (as opposed to the US, which they're more than happy to criticise). These old labels of left and right etc don't mean much, or shouldn't mean much, to citizens, who should be looking at the actual policies. Personally I find the jingoism, nationalism and partisan reporting inherent in national news annoying and distracting.
It's far harder for these newspapers to drop their existing ties to physical space, local politics, and a nation state, than it will be for newer companies founded on the internet to ignore national affiliations and become truly global organisations. A new international news won't care what the established political parties and pundits have to say on a particular issue, but does care what reporters on the ground and citizens on the ground in that country have to say, and how it contrasts with the governing party's narrative (and often the stories our governments tell us via news organisations, presented without question or fact-checking, are clearly a constructed narrative, with bad guys and good guys, for example on the killing of 16 year old Abdulrahman al-Awlaki (reported as 21 one year old terrorist), or the cruise missile strike on al-Ma'jalah (women and children reported as a terrorist training camp, cruise missiles reported as Yemeni air force)). It's very difficult to make that kind of news if you also want to be part of the White House press pool (or equivalent in other countries), have limited access, and rely on simply reporting verbatim the unreliable statements of US allies like Yemen. Compare and contrast these reports:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/world/middleeast/18yemen.h... http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2013/6/7/witness_to_a_massa...
The lie was printed right after the events, based solely on US and Yemeni gov statements, but the truth was almost the exact opposite of the story relayed by the NYTimes here. They do not often simply relay stories from the North Korean, Russian or Chinese government without question like this.
I'm sure there will have been an nytimes article correcting this at some point when the truth came out, though I can't find it specifically, and by then it's too late. Much of the criticism of the administration in the nytimes is written by outsiders (not journalists), relegated to the op-ed pages, and labelled as 'opinion', when it in fact contains more truth than the official reporting.