Journalism has its share of clichés that seek to define its mission.
One of them is to “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.”
It doesn’t betray a bias, per se. It simply defines one of the tenets that drives journalists to do their job with thoroughness, while being fair to those they are examining.
Thus, a group of journalists sat before Donald J. Trump on Tuesday and grilled the presumptive Republican presidential nomination on donations he said he made to veterans organizations.
Trump’s response was to throw a tantrum.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/01/opinions/donald-trump-tantrum-media-role-louis/index.html
The issue at hand dealt with whether Trump actually donated the amount of money he said he had donated to veterans organizations.
Washington Post reporters had detected a discrepancy in what Trump had said, that the money went to the organizations many months after he said he made the donation. So, media representatives questioned him about that discrepancy, only to have Trump respond with another round of name-calling and insults.
Trump seems to demonstrate a casual disregard for the facts. He said after the 9/11 attacks that he witnessed “thousands and thousands of Muslims” cheering the collapse of the World Trade Center towers.
He didn’t witness anything of the sort.
Some pundits have accused Trump of being a “pathological liar,” defining it as a case in which the candidate tells a lie knowing it to be a lie and understanding full well that others who hear it also know it to be a lie.
It’s the media’s responsibility to ensure that candidates be held accountable for statements they make.
That’s what happened at the news conference Tuesday as the media grilled the candidate on what he said he’d done on behalf of veterans organizations.
Sure, they have “afflicted the comfortable.” It’s their job.
He has been surrounded by “yes men” all his life. He has never been challenged. Accountability is not among his virtues.
Trump has exhibited an astonishing ability to avoid answering direct questions and to date, the media have shown an equally astonishing trait in failing to press him for the answers the public deserves to hear. The media’s role in this charade is beginning to change. Thanks for your comment, Jim.
I think I may keep coming back to this blog – I hope you, Mr. Kanelis, don’t mind if occasionally “afflict” your comfortable retirement.
Trump “news” does not interest me much, but your thesis statment (actually more of a teaser) does:
Journalism has its share of clichés that seek to define its mission.
One of them is to “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.”
It doesn’t betray a bias, per se. It simply defines one of the tenets that drives journalists to do their job with thoroughness, while being fair to those they are examining.
“Bias” is one of those squishy, mostly undefined, terms that gets thrown around. It seems to imply a way of thinking by the user and serves as code to comrades (Iknow, there are better, less Soviet, synonyms). When one expresses “no bias” they are displaying feathers with suitable colors.
(now I’m off to try an advanced search to check for “objective” at this web domain – BRB)
(odd that no results were returned – but the blog search engine does)
A cursory sampling indicates that you don’t use the word “objective” in reporting matters – a good thing.
I’ve often though it odd that states that lean (or wallow in) Democratic Waters are called “red states”. Wikipedia has a fairly detailed entry on the matter:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states
There it states:
According to The Washington Post, the (terms “Red state” and “Blue state” ) were coined by journalist Tim Russert, during his televised coverage of the 2000 presidential election
The entry goes on to say that this had reversed:
a long-standing convention of political colors where red symbols (such as the Red Flag or Red Star) are associated with revolutionary movements
– one that had gone back to the 1888 presidential election.
Of course this sounds odd to me – a “boomer” born in 1958 and who was reading early-on not only Time and Newsweek, but the 1957 Encyclopedia Britannica and annual “Books of the Year”. I therefore knew that not only were the Soviets dirty-rotten cheaters at the Olympics and had designs on the Free World but were also known as the Reds (along with less adventuring Red China).
I am resigned to the current dissonant usage – realizing with regret that our “red” journalists of a certain vintage would rather forget various “Red” American sympathies from the past.
The late great David Brinkley once said that “objectivity” doesn’t exist. The key principle to which journalism must adhere, he said, was to be fair. Pure objectivity, he added, was something of a misnomer, if not a myth. Thank you for your commentary. Keep reading.
My standard for “newspapers” (their term) is The Economist.
Like Brinkley they do not pretend objectivity but seem to be mostly fair.
They have certain “blind spots” – one is that they think Gun Control (beyond the practical “Aim, Exhale, Fire” routine) is the legitimate provenance of government – and I don’t recall if they even advocate for further controls on this side of the Pond. It was Mencken, or a contemporaneous iconoclast, who once wrote (paraphasing):
“Everytime there’s a (mass shooting) they want to punish the innocent.”
What they really have are experts – or at the very least, informed writers. Many of them know not only how to add and subtract but also to multiply and divide. Said another way they have B#!!$#IT Detectors that include knowing the right number of zeros in a figure/statistic (and how many Stateside journalists have that?). They have little of the nonsence that is routinely published here – where two opposing P’sOV are presented in and attempt to be “fair”. Relevant knowledge and an oft-used B#!!$#IT Detector will allow the writer to exclude one of “both sides of a story” that itself is not legitimate.
(and where did God write that there are EVER only two sides?)
The fear-mongering around GMO’s is an ever-present example of a legitimate side and an not-legitimate side. The latter never has solid data to back up their “concerns” – but gets about 50% of the noise (uh, “coverage”).
Economist writers seem always to have an informed point of view. They do not rely so much on “experts” or low-value “opposition”.
I should subscribe again.