[What is this? I use as a Work In Progress scrap book draft. I work more when stuff is public vs. when it’s hidden on my computer.]
Every publisher and broadcaster in history created their pamphlet, newsletter, newspaper, radio channel or TV/video channel to promote or prevent change.
Social change, political change, cultural change, regulatory change, behavioral change, policy change.
Maybe to change the broad political culture or corporate culture, maybe to change the narrow culture within a particular community.
The biggest media marketing stunt in history is the invention of “journalism” as the promise to present “just the facts.”
Advocates masked their activism as simply providing information and what was new in the world, “the news.”
Journalism schools held neutrality and objectivity as key values for many decades, what critics call “the view from nowhere.”
Media shape perceptions. In a democracy, where people make decisions on how we are governed, the power to shape perceptions is the power to shape politics and policy.
It’s the power to shape everything.
You might say: “No way! The president or prime minister decided that!”
How do you know what the president or prime minister said? Did you watch their whole press conference? Did you listen to the whole speech?
Of course you didn’t. You read, watched or heard the 5-second or 20-second soundbite that the media clipped and wanted you to hear.
The only way you have any idea what the president or prime minister says is because of the media. If they didn’t tell you, nobody would notice, and nobody would care.
Standard newsroom practice in my 13 years as a reporter and editor at XXX + XXX:
That’s why you can have a hundred journalists at the same event, and each story is different. The easiest way to see this is sports journalism. If Toronto is playing New York, do you think the New York Times will cover the game the same way as the Toronto Star? Of course not.
What pulled back the curtain on the media game was U.S. election night, 2016. Peter Mansbridge on CBC News announcing the results of Trump’s victory like it was a funeral.
I couldn’t believe it. These were not reporters. These were Clinton campaigners.
I changed channels. Every network was the same. The entire media was in mourning because their team lost.
It has always been this way. We just never noticed until recently.
Other example. I was working at XXX in Tokyo during Obama’s first victory. We had a lot of Americans in the newsroom.
The results were announced late at night in the U.S., which was daytime in Tokyo.
Headline: OBAMA WINS …
Newsroom explodes in cheer.
A couple in St. Louis defend their home with a firearm after protesters enter their neighborhood
— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) June 29, 2020
pic.twitter.com/idmZO0nIpS
These headlines describe the same event:
Me: All journalism is activism and always has been.
It was marketed as “just the facts,” objectivity, neutrality, balance …
Terje: Can’t say I agree. Lack of bias is impossible, but that doesn’t mean journalism=activism. What about people who cover sports, theater or the weather? Is that activism disguised as journalism?
Or Bloomberg stocks reports? Stocks fell/rose? That’s activism?
Me: Ummm … It’s less obvious, but … Yeah.
Mike B. created BN as an activist to change the bond market.
Almost every major paper in existence was created by a businessman, politician, political party/organization or labour union … To promote or prevent social change.
Activism is the DNA of journalism.
Terje: One way of looking at it, I suppose
But everything anyone does is motivated by something, so
Like, my going to the kitchen for a sandwich is an act of activism to prevent starving to death
Me: Haha! Ya!
I guess a key difference: You aren’t publishing a daily journal telling other people what or what not to eat.
Have you ever been an advocate/activist and had been upset with the implicit bias in Big Media coverage?
It’s why I started my gun blog.
Also: any media promotes the cultural-social-political etc bias and values of the writers …
#SystemicRacism etc
Terje: Well again, bias is unavoidable because no human being lacks bias. And everything we do is motivated by something. But journalists can adhere to standards of fairness and truthfulness (factual reporting). I think that’s the best one can hope for.
Me: Actually, telling people what to eat might be a good thing. People are mostly eating shit that’s bad for them. But providing them information is different from forcing them, right?
Me: Oh, for sure.
I don’t see bias or activism as a flaw. It’s unavoidable.
I think the deceit and duplicity (and accusation of FakeNews) is pretending or hiding that we act from bias and that we have an agenda.
The NYT has an agenda. They report their version of the facts.
Police Kill Unarmed Black Teen
Teen Is Shot Dead By Police After Threatening Them With Fake Gun in His Pocket