On Oct 15, 2022 at 3:42:56 PM PDT, "RichA" <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:

> La Presse in Quebec first reported on this. CBC is denying it wants to allow
> minority journalists to BE biased, in the service of "inclusion." Marxists
> 101.
>
>
> https://nationalpost.com/opinion/first-reading-cbc-says-it-is-not-considering-dropping-requirement

Welcome to the party. We haven't had journalistic objectivity requirements in
American news media for several decades now.

On 10/15/2022 6:47 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Oct 15, 2022 at 3:42:56 PM PDT, "RichA" <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> La Presse in Quebec first reported on this. CBC is denying it wants to allow
>> minority journalists to BE biased, in the service of "inclusion." Marxists
>> 101.
>>
>>
>> https://nationalpost.com/opinion/first-reading-cbc-says-it-is-not-considering-dropping-requirement
>
> Welcome to the party. We haven't had journalistic objectivity requirements in
> American news media for several decades now.

Maybe because there's no such thing as "journalistic objectivity".

On Oct 15, 2022 at 4:06:12 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

> On 10/15/2022 6:47 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> On Oct 15, 2022 at 3:42:56 PM PDT, "RichA" <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> La Presse in Quebec first reported on this. CBC is denying it wants to
>>> allow
>>> minority journalists to BE biased, in the service of "inclusion." Marxists
>>> 101.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> https://nationalpost.com/opinion/first-reading-cbc-says-it-is-not-considering-dropping-requirement
>>
>> Welcome to the party. We haven't had journalistic objectivity requirements
>> in
>> American news media for several decades now.
>
> Maybe because there's no such thing as "journalistic objectivity".

No, that's not why.

On 10/15/2022 6:06 PM, moviePig wrote:
> On 10/15/2022 6:47 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> On Oct 15, 2022 at 3:42:56 PM PDT, "RichA" <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> La Presse in Quebec first reported on this.  CBC is denying it wants
>>> to allow
>>> minority journalists to BE biased, in the service of "inclusion."
>>> Marxists
>>> 101.
>>>
>>>
>>> https://nationalpost.com/opinion/first-reading-cbc-says-it-is-not-considering-dropping-requirement
>>
>> Welcome to the party. We haven't had journalistic objectivity
>> requirements in
>> American news media for several decades now.
>
> Maybe because there's no such thing as "journalistic objectivity".

Sure. Woodward and Bernstein had it in for Nixon, right?

On 10/15/2022 6:07 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Oct 15, 2022 at 4:06:12 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/15/2022 6:47 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> On Oct 15, 2022 at 3:42:56 PM PDT, "RichA" <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> La Presse in Quebec first reported on this. CBC is denying it wants to
>>>> allow
>>>> minority journalists to BE biased, in the service of "inclusion." Marxists
>>>> 101.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://nationalpost.com/opinion/first-reading-cbc-says-it-is-not-considering-dropping-requirement
>>>
>>> Welcome to the party. We haven't had journalistic objectivity requirements
>>> in
>>> American news media for several decades now.
>>
>> Maybe because there's no such thing as "journalistic objectivity".
>
> No, that's not why.

Correct, it's due to right wing horseshit.

On 10/15/2022 6:49 PM, RichA wrote:
> On Saturday, 15 October 2022 at 19:06:18 UTC-4, moviePig wrote:
>> On 10/15/2022 6:47 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> On Oct 15, 2022 at 3:42:56 PM PDT, "RichA" <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> La Presse in Quebec first reported on this. CBC is denying it wants to allow
>>>> minority journalists to BE biased, in the service of "inclusion." Marxists
>>>> 101.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://nationalpost.com/opinion/first-reading-cbc-says-it-is-not-considering-dropping-requirement
>>>
>>> Welcome to the party. We haven't had journalistic objectivity requirements in
>>> American news media for several decades now.
>> Maybe because there's no such thing as "journalistic objectivity".
>
> wiki:
>
> The journalist must report only the facts and not a personal attitude toward the facts. While objectivity is a complex and dynamic notion that may refer to a multitude of techniques and practices, it generally refers to the idea of "three distinct, yet interrelated, concepts": truthfulness, neutrality, and detachment.

Do you have a link so we can prove you're not LYING? Didn't think so.

In article <tigedg$962$5@gioia.aioe.org>, trotsky <gmsingh@email.com>
wrote:

> On 10/15/2022 6:49 PM, RichA wrote:
> > On Saturday, 15 October 2022 at 19:06:18 UTC-4, moviePig wrote:
> >> On 10/15/2022 6:47 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>> On Oct 15, 2022 at 3:42:56 PM PDT, "RichA" <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> La Presse in Quebec first reported on this. CBC is denying it wants to
> >>>> allow
> >>>> minority journalists to BE biased, in the service of "inclusion."
> >>>> Marxists
> >>>> 101.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> https://nationalpost.com/opinion/first-reading-cbc-says-it-is-not-conside
> >>>> ring-dropping-requirement
> >>>
> >>> Welcome to the party. We haven't had journalistic objectivity
> >>> requirements in
> >>> American news media for several decades now.
> >> Maybe because there's no such thing as "journalistic objectivity".
> >
> > wiki:
> >
> > The journalist must report only the facts and not a personal attitude
> > toward the facts. While objectivity is a complex and dynamic notion that
> > may refer to a multitude of techniques and practices, it generally refers
> > to the idea of "three distinct, yet interrelated, concepts": truthfulness,
> > neutrality, and detachment.
>
>
> Do you have a link so we can prove you're not LYING? Didn't think so.

News reporting and journalism are not the same thing. A journalist is
required to state accurately what they saw, and is then free to say
what it meant to them and might mean to others.

Is a detached view of starving Cambodian refugees possible? I hope to
hell not.

> BTR1701
> > RichA
> >
> > La Presse in Quebec first reported on this. CBC is denying it wants to allow
> > minority journalists to BE biased, in the service of "inclusion." Marxists 101.
>
> Welcome to the party. We haven't had journalistic objectivity requirements in
> American news media for several decades now.

Humans are humans and the perspective of a story depends on the journalist
writing it, while our right to free speech dictates that they can write it from any
perspective they like, including straight up lying.

The onus is on the reader to judge the truth and accuracy of a news story by
comparing it with reports from other media sources. Of course that can only
happen if we have access to other sources free from censorship.

On 10/16/2022 6:36 AM, A Friend wrote:
> In article <tigedg$962$5@gioia.aioe.org>, trotsky <gmsingh@email.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 10/15/2022 6:49 PM, RichA wrote:
>>> On Saturday, 15 October 2022 at 19:06:18 UTC-4, moviePig wrote:
>>>> On 10/15/2022 6:47 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 15, 2022 at 3:42:56 PM PDT, "RichA" <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> La Presse in Quebec first reported on this. CBC is denying it wants to
>>>>>> allow
>>>>>> minority journalists to BE biased, in the service of "inclusion."
>>>>>> Marxists
>>>>>> 101.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://nationalpost.com/opinion/first-reading-cbc-says-it-is-not-conside
>>>>>> ring-dropping-requirement
>>>>>
>>>>> Welcome to the party. We haven't had journalistic objectivity
>>>>> requirements in
>>>>> American news media for several decades now.
>>>> Maybe because there's no such thing as "journalistic objectivity".
>>>
>>> wiki:
>>>
>>> The journalist must report only the facts and not a personal attitude
>>> toward the facts. While objectivity is a complex and dynamic notion that
>>> may refer to a multitude of techniques and practices, it generally refers
>>> to the idea of "three distinct, yet interrelated, concepts": truthfulness,
>>> neutrality, and detachment.
>>
>>
>> Do you have a link so we can prove you're not LYING? Didn't think so.
>
>
> News reporting and journalism are not the same thing. A journalist is
> required to state accurately what they saw, and is then free to say
> what it meant to them and might mean to others.
>
> Is a detached view of starving Cambodian refugees possible? I hope to
> hell not.

My sister studied journalism. That doesn't mean I know about through
osmosis but I do have some knowledge of it. The first rule of
journalism is conveying information: who, what, why, when and how.
Whether you can have a point of view attached to that I'm sure is
discussed, but I don't believe there would should be a steadfast rule
about it. But traditional journalism was supposed to give all
perspectives from what I've just read on the subject. It stands to
reason with the mountains of trash emanating from certain political
factions this is no longer possible. If someone is report on Sandy
Hook, for example, do we need to hear Alex Jones' "perspective?" No, it
is trash. Or, in your example, do we need to disciples of Pol Pot on
Cambodia? No. Here's an article in medium on the subject:

https://medium.com/@gabrielecruciata/should-journalists-be-impartial-b9af82c0ea28

Should journalists be impartial?

Being objective and unbiased has always been key to journalism. But is
it still true nowadays?

On 10/16/2022 7:36 AM, A Friend wrote:
> In article <tigedg$962$5@gioia.aioe.org>, trotsky <gmsingh@email.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 10/15/2022 6:49 PM, RichA wrote:
>>> On Saturday, 15 October 2022 at 19:06:18 UTC-4, moviePig wrote:
>>>> On 10/15/2022 6:47 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 15, 2022 at 3:42:56 PM PDT, "RichA" <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> La Presse in Quebec first reported on this. CBC is denying it wants to
>>>>>> allow
>>>>>> minority journalists to BE biased, in the service of "inclusion."
>>>>>> Marxists
>>>>>> 101.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://nationalpost.com/opinion/first-reading-cbc-says-it-is-not-conside
>>>>>> ring-dropping-requirement
>>>>>
>>>>> Welcome to the party. We haven't had journalistic objectivity
>>>>> requirements in
>>>>> American news media for several decades now.
>>>> Maybe because there's no such thing as "journalistic objectivity".
>>>
>>> wiki:
>>>
>>> The journalist must report only the facts and not a personal attitude
>>> toward the facts. While objectivity is a complex and dynamic notion that
>>> may refer to a multitude of techniques and practices, it generally refers
>>> to the idea of "three distinct, yet interrelated, concepts": truthfulness,
>>> neutrality, and detachment.
>>
>>
>> Do you have a link so we can prove you're not LYING? Didn't think so.
>
>
> News reporting and journalism are not the same thing. A journalist is
> required to state accurately what they saw, and is then free to say
> what it meant to them and might mean to others.
>
> Is a detached view of starving Cambodian refugees possible? I hope to
> hell not.

Well, there's "detached from reality"...

On 10/16/2022 8:49 AM, trotsky wrote:
> On 10/16/2022 6:36 AM, A Friend wrote:
>> In article <tigedg$962$5@gioia.aioe.org>, trotsky <gmsingh@email.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/15/2022 6:49 PM, RichA wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, 15 October 2022 at 19:06:18 UTC-4, moviePig wrote:
>>>>> On 10/15/2022 6:47 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>> On Oct 15, 2022 at 3:42:56 PM PDT, "RichA" <rande...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> La Presse in Quebec first reported on this. CBC is denying it
>>>>>>> wants to
>>>>>>> allow
>>>>>>> minority journalists to BE biased, in the service of "inclusion."
>>>>>>> Marxists
>>>>>>> 101.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://nationalpost.com/opinion/first-reading-cbc-says-it-is-not-conside
>>>>>>> ring-dropping-requirement
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Welcome to the party. We haven't had journalistic objectivity
>>>>>> requirements in
>>>>>> American news media for several decades now.
>>>>> Maybe because there's no such thing as "journalistic objectivity".
>>>>
>>>> wiki:
>>>>
>>>> The journalist must report only the facts and not a personal attitude
>>>> toward the facts. While objectivity is a complex and dynamic notion
>>>> that
>>>> may refer to a multitude of techniques and practices, it generally
>>>> refers
>>>> to the idea of "three distinct, yet interrelated, concepts":
>>>> truthfulness,
>>>> neutrality, and detachment.
>>>
>>>
>>> Do you have a link so we can prove you're not LYING?  Didn't think so.
>>
>>
>> News reporting and journalism are not the same thing.  A journalist is
>> required to state accurately what they saw, and is then free to say
>> what it meant to them and might mean to others.
>>
>> Is a detached view of starving Cambodian refugees possible?  I hope to
>> hell not.
>
>
> My sister studied journalism.  That doesn't mean I know about through
> osmosis but I do have some knowledge of it.  The first rule of
> journalism is conveying information: who, what, why, when and how.
> Whether you can have a point of view attached to that I'm sure is
> discussed, but I don't believe there would should be a steadfast rule
> about it.  But traditional journalism was supposed to give all
> perspectives from what I've just read on the subject.  It stands to
> reason with the mountains of trash emanating from certain political
> factions this is no longer possible.  If someone is report on Sandy
> Hook, for example, do we need to hear Alex Jones' "perspective?"  No, it
> is trash.  Or, in your example, do we need to disciples of Pol Pot on
> Cambodia?  No.  Here's an article in medium on the subject:
>
> https://medium.com/@gabrielecruciata/should-journalists-be-impartial-b9af82c0ea28
>
> Should journalists be impartial?
>
> Being objective and unbiased has always been key to journalism. But is
> it still true nowadays?

As time went on, more and more, I'd suspect...

My point is that "journalistic objectivity" is an ideal that is, well,
far from ideal. Human reaction to a newsworthy event is an inevitable
part of the event, and pretending that it's not can be a dangerous fib.

On 10/16/2022 9:29 AM, moviePig wrote:
> On 10/16/2022 7:36 AM, A Friend wrote:
>> In article <tigedg$962$5@gioia.aioe.org>, trotsky <gmsingh@email.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/15/2022 6:49 PM, RichA wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, 15 October 2022 at 19:06:18 UTC-4, moviePig wrote:
>>>>> On 10/15/2022 6:47 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>> On Oct 15, 2022 at 3:42:56 PM PDT, "RichA" <rande...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> La Presse in Quebec first reported on this. CBC is denying it
>>>>>>> wants to
>>>>>>> allow
>>>>>>> minority journalists to BE biased, in the service of "inclusion."
>>>>>>> Marxists
>>>>>>> 101.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://nationalpost.com/opinion/first-reading-cbc-says-it-is-not-conside
>>>>>>> ring-dropping-requirement
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Welcome to the party. We haven't had journalistic objectivity
>>>>>> requirements in
>>>>>> American news media for several decades now.
>>>>> Maybe because there's no such thing as "journalistic objectivity".
>>>>
>>>> wiki:
>>>>
>>>> The journalist must report only the facts and not a personal attitude
>>>> toward the facts. While objectivity is a complex and dynamic notion
>>>> that
>>>> may refer to a multitude of techniques and practices, it generally
>>>> refers
>>>> to the idea of "three distinct, yet interrelated, concepts":
>>>> truthfulness,
>>>> neutrality, and detachment.
>>>
>>>
>>> Do you have a link so we can prove you're not LYING?  Didn't think so.
>>
>>
>> News reporting and journalism are not the same thing.  A journalist is
>> required to state accurately what they saw, and is then free to say
>> what it meant to them and might mean to others.
>>
>> Is a detached view of starving Cambodian refugees possible?  I hope to
>> hell not.
>
> Well, there's "detached from reality"...

Or viewing with detached retinas.

On 10/16/2022 9:56 AM, moviePig wrote:
> On 10/16/2022 8:49 AM, trotsky wrote:
>> On 10/16/2022 6:36 AM, A Friend wrote:
>>> In article <tigedg$962$5@gioia.aioe.org>, trotsky <gmsingh@email.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/15/2022 6:49 PM, RichA wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, 15 October 2022 at 19:06:18 UTC-4, moviePig wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/15/2022 6:47 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> On Oct 15, 2022 at 3:42:56 PM PDT, "RichA" <rande...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> La Presse in Quebec first reported on this. CBC is denying it
>>>>>>>> wants to
>>>>>>>> allow
>>>>>>>> minority journalists to BE biased, in the service of "inclusion."
>>>>>>>> Marxists
>>>>>>>> 101.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://nationalpost.com/opinion/first-reading-cbc-says-it-is-not-conside
>>>>>>>> ring-dropping-requirement
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Welcome to the party. We haven't had journalistic objectivity
>>>>>>> requirements in
>>>>>>> American news media for several decades now.
>>>>>> Maybe because there's no such thing as "journalistic objectivity".
>>>>>
>>>>> wiki:
>>>>>
>>>>> The journalist must report only the facts and not a personal attitude
>>>>> toward the facts. While objectivity is a complex and dynamic notion
>>>>> that
>>>>> may refer to a multitude of techniques and practices, it generally
>>>>> refers
>>>>> to the idea of "three distinct, yet interrelated, concepts":
>>>>> truthfulness,
>>>>> neutrality, and detachment.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do you have a link so we can prove you're not LYING?  Didn't think so.
>>>
>>>
>>> News reporting and journalism are not the same thing.  A journalist is
>>> required to state accurately what they saw, and is then free to say
>>> what it meant to them and might mean to others.
>>>
>>> Is a detached view of starving Cambodian refugees possible?  I hope to
>>> hell not.
>>
>>
>> My sister studied journalism.  That doesn't mean I know about through
>> osmosis but I do have some knowledge of it.  The first rule of
>> journalism is conveying information: who, what, why, when and how.
>> Whether you can have a point of view attached to that I'm sure is
>> discussed, but I don't believe there would should be a steadfast rule
>> about it.  But traditional journalism was supposed to give all
>> perspectives from what I've just read on the subject.  It stands to
>> reason with the mountains of trash emanating from certain political
>> factions this is no longer possible.  If someone is report on Sandy
>> Hook, for example, do we need to hear Alex Jones' "perspective?"  No,
>> it is trash.  Or, in your example, do we need to disciples of Pol Pot
>> on Cambodia?  No.  Here's an article in medium on the subject:
>>
>> https://medium.com/@gabrielecruciata/should-journalists-be-impartial-b9af82c0ea28
>>
>> Should journalists be impartial?
>>
>> Being objective and unbiased has always been key to journalism. But is
>> it still true nowadays?
>
> As time went on, more and more, I'd suspect...
>
> My point is that "journalistic objectivity" is an ideal that is, well,
> far from ideal.  Human reaction to a newsworthy event is an inevitable
> part of the event, and pretending that it's not can be a dangerous fib.

I still think there was a point in time where this wasn't so, and it
depends on the event(s) as well. I'm very doubtful that there was any
bias in the reporting of the Hindenburg disaster or the reporting on
WWII. Yet know we have fucked up people saying the Holocaust never
happened, there's got to be fucked up websites or news outlets that
actually repeat this. Rather different than yesteryear I'd say.

On 10/16/2022 12:16 PM, trotsky wrote:
> On 10/16/2022 9:56 AM, moviePig wrote:
>> On 10/16/2022 8:49 AM, trotsky wrote:
>>> On 10/16/2022 6:36 AM, A Friend wrote:
>>>> In article <tigedg$962$5@gioia.aioe.org>, trotsky <gmsingh@email.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/15/2022 6:49 PM, RichA wrote:
>>>>>> On Saturday, 15 October 2022 at 19:06:18 UTC-4, moviePig wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/15/2022 6:47 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Oct 15, 2022 at 3:42:56 PM PDT, "RichA" <rande...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> La Presse in Quebec first reported on this. CBC is denying it
>>>>>>>>> wants to
>>>>>>>>> allow
>>>>>>>>> minority journalists to BE biased, in the service of "inclusion."
>>>>>>>>> Marxists
>>>>>>>>> 101.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://nationalpost.com/opinion/first-reading-cbc-says-it-is-not-conside
>>>>>>>>> ring-dropping-requirement
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Welcome to the party. We haven't had journalistic objectivity
>>>>>>>> requirements in
>>>>>>>> American news media for several decades now.
>>>>>>> Maybe because there's no such thing as "journalistic objectivity".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> wiki:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The journalist must report only the facts and not a personal attitude
>>>>>> toward the facts. While objectivity is a complex and dynamic
>>>>>> notion that
>>>>>> may refer to a multitude of techniques and practices, it generally
>>>>>> refers
>>>>>> to the idea of "three distinct, yet interrelated, concepts":
>>>>>> truthfulness,
>>>>>> neutrality, and detachment.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you have a link so we can prove you're not LYING?  Didn't think so.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> News reporting and journalism are not the same thing.  A journalist is
>>>> required to state accurately what they saw, and is then free to say
>>>> what it meant to them and might mean to others.
>>>>
>>>> Is a detached view of starving Cambodian refugees possible?  I hope to
>>>> hell not.
>>>
>>>
>>> My sister studied journalism.  That doesn't mean I know about through
>>> osmosis but I do have some knowledge of it.  The first rule of
>>> journalism is conveying information: who, what, why, when and how.
>>> Whether you can have a point of view attached to that I'm sure is
>>> discussed, but I don't believe there would should be a steadfast rule
>>> about it.  But traditional journalism was supposed to give all
>>> perspectives from what I've just read on the subject.  It stands to
>>> reason with the mountains of trash emanating from certain political
>>> factions this is no longer possible.  If someone is report on Sandy
>>> Hook, for example, do we need to hear Alex Jones' "perspective?"  No,
>>> it is trash.  Or, in your example, do we need to disciples of Pol Pot
>>> on Cambodia?  No.  Here's an article in medium on the subject:
>>>
>>> https://medium.com/@gabrielecruciata/should-journalists-be-impartial-b9af82c0ea28
>>>
>>> Should journalists be impartial?
>>>
>>> Being objective and unbiased has always been key to journalism. But
>>> is it still true nowadays?
>>
>> As time went on, more and more, I'd suspect...
>>
>> My point is that "journalistic objectivity" is an ideal that is, well,
>> far from ideal.  Human reaction to a newsworthy event is an inevitable
>> part of the event, and pretending that it's not can be a dangerous fib.
>
>
> I still think there was a point in time where this wasn't so, and it
> depends on the event(s) as well.  I'm very doubtful that there was any
> bias in the reporting of the Hindenburg disaster or the reporting on
> WWII.  Yet know we have fucked up people saying the Holocaust never
> happened, there's got to be fucked up websites or news outlets that
> actually repeat this.  Rather different than yesteryear I'd say.

Okay, here's another angle. Take the most journalistically objective
account you can find of any (political) event, and ask 100 readers to
evaluate its degree of bias. I'm saying that nearly all of them will
find some ...and they'll be evenly split on which direction. I.e., even
if "objectivity" could exist in some sense, it might as well not.

On 10/16/2022 11:41 AM, moviePig wrote:
> On 10/16/2022 12:16 PM, trotsky wrote:
>> On 10/16/2022 9:56 AM, moviePig wrote:
>>> On 10/16/2022 8:49 AM, trotsky wrote:
>>>> On 10/16/2022 6:36 AM, A Friend wrote:
>>>>> In article <tigedg$962$5@gioia.aioe.org>, trotsky <gmsingh@email.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/15/2022 6:49 PM, RichA wrote:
>>>>>>> On Saturday, 15 October 2022 at 19:06:18 UTC-4, moviePig wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2022 6:47 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Oct 15, 2022 at 3:42:56 PM PDT, "RichA" <rande...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> La Presse in Quebec first reported on this. CBC is denying it
>>>>>>>>>> wants to
>>>>>>>>>> allow
>>>>>>>>>> minority journalists to BE biased, in the service of "inclusion."
>>>>>>>>>> Marxists
>>>>>>>>>> 101.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://nationalpost.com/opinion/first-reading-cbc-says-it-is-not-conside
>>>>>>>>>> ring-dropping-requirement
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Welcome to the party. We haven't had journalistic objectivity
>>>>>>>>> requirements in
>>>>>>>>> American news media for several decades now.
>>>>>>>> Maybe because there's no such thing as "journalistic objectivity".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> wiki:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The journalist must report only the facts and not a personal
>>>>>>> attitude
>>>>>>> toward the facts. While objectivity is a complex and dynamic
>>>>>>> notion that
>>>>>>> may refer to a multitude of techniques and practices, it
>>>>>>> generally refers
>>>>>>> to the idea of "three distinct, yet interrelated, concepts":
>>>>>>> truthfulness,
>>>>>>> neutrality, and detachment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you have a link so we can prove you're not LYING?  Didn't think
>>>>>> so.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> News reporting and journalism are not the same thing.  A journalist is
>>>>> required to state accurately what they saw, and is then free to say
>>>>> what it meant to them and might mean to others.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is a detached view of starving Cambodian refugees possible?  I hope to
>>>>> hell not.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My sister studied journalism.  That doesn't mean I know about
>>>> through osmosis but I do have some knowledge of it.  The first rule
>>>> of journalism is conveying information: who, what, why, when and
>>>> how. Whether you can have a point of view attached to that I'm sure
>>>> is discussed, but I don't believe there would should be a steadfast
>>>> rule about it.  But traditional journalism was supposed to give all
>>>> perspectives from what I've just read on the subject.  It stands to
>>>> reason with the mountains of trash emanating from certain political
>>>> factions this is no longer possible.  If someone is report on Sandy
>>>> Hook, for example, do we need to hear Alex Jones' "perspective?"
>>>> No, it is trash.  Or, in your example, do we need to disciples of
>>>> Pol Pot on Cambodia?  No.  Here's an article in medium on the subject:
>>>>
>>>> https://medium.com/@gabrielecruciata/should-journalists-be-impartial-b9af82c0ea28
>>>>
>>>> Should journalists be impartial?
>>>>
>>>> Being objective and unbiased has always been key to journalism. But
>>>> is it still true nowadays?
>>>
>>> As time went on, more and more, I'd suspect...
>>>
>>> My point is that "journalistic objectivity" is an ideal that is,
>>> well, far from ideal.  Human reaction to a newsworthy event is an
>>> inevitable part of the event, and pretending that it's not can be a
>>> dangerous fib.
>>
>>
>> I still think there was a point in time where this wasn't so, and it
>> depends on the event(s) as well.  I'm very doubtful that there was any
>> bias in the reporting of the Hindenburg disaster or the reporting on
>> WWII.  Yet know we have fucked up people saying the Holocaust never
>> happened, there's got to be fucked up websites or news outlets that
>> actually repeat this.  Rather different than yesteryear I'd say.
>
> Okay, here's another angle.  Take the most journalistically objective
> account you can find of any (political) event, and ask 100 readers to
> evaluate its degree of bias.  I'm saying that nearly all of them will
> find some ...and they'll be evenly split on which direction.  I.e., even
> if "objectivity" could exist in some sense, it might as well not.

Fail. We're talking about journalists and journalism not making nail soup.