Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
From Dan Froomkin, former Washington Post columnist:
Journalists should strive for accuracy, and fairness. Objectivity is impossible, and is too often confused with balance. And the problem with balance is that we are not living in a balanced time. For instance, is it patently obvious that at this point in our history, the leading luminaries on one side of the American political spectrum are considerably less tethered to reality than those on the other side. Madly trying to split the difference, as so many of my mainstream-media colleagues feel impelled to do, does a disservice to the concept of the truth.
Bingo. But the key is that a real journalist should call out either side on an issue when they become untethered to reality. It is reality that journalism should always strive to represent, regardless of which side of a political dispute benefits from that work.
Politics
Comments
No. A REAL journalist would be too busy with stories like "Drunk people draw on other drunk people" to do any other journalism..
Posted by: Donalbain | November 7, 2009 4:34 PM
This is one of the most dismaying things about US American journalism. The problem is there is a LOT of BS that is out there and the journalists job is not simply to report "such-an-such says this" but to cut through all the crap to find what is actually WORTH reporting. Instead, all sorts of crap is laid out on the table for the viewer to sift through ("we report, you decide"). Creationists (for example) end up getting equal, if not MORE air-time, giving an extremely lopsided view of things.
But the problem goes back to Edward Murrow's day. "News" in the US is a business, and hence profits are more important than providing people with accurate information. And without that, a democracy in any form will wither and die.
Posted by: We Are The 801 | November 7, 2009 5:58 PM
There seems to be some sort of unwritten rule against calling a wingnut a wingnut. When it comes to climate regulation, for example, it's apparently OK to write about astroturf campaigns from coal interests (e.g. the recent Bonner and Associates scandal), but when a campaign is run by a wingnut groups such as the Heartland Institute, the group's only described as, say, a 'conservative policy think-tank'.
Posted by: bi -- IJI | November 7, 2009 11:35 PM
bi -- IJI - "conservative policy think-tank" = wingnut echo chamber, in the same way as "colourful Sydney business identity" = rich Sydney crim + high-powered mouthpiece(s). Readers and watchers of the news knew exactly was meant, it's just that it wasn't specific enough for the CSBI's to sue the news organisation.
Although some are truly stupid, most get the concept of "euphemism". - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 8, 2009 12:02 AM
A short course in eye-rolling, "crack a walnut" winking, making an open fist and moving it up and down at an oblique angle AND probing one's cheek with the tip of one's tounge would work wonders for newscritters.
Posted by: democommie | November 8, 2009 7:57 AM