Couple of things
- Merciful Mary, three days of irrational heat and then, it appears, fall arrives. Not much rain though, which is depressing (and more nerve-wracking with each passing day).
- Just 'a function of your location?' OK, that's sweet, but the reality is Pendergrass and Arcade clean up on traffic tickets because they have this massive, four-lane bypass and then tell you to go only 35 or 45 miles per hour on it.
- Using the SCHIP discussion as my example, I've become a fan of the good reporting found in many McClatchy publications.
- While Jeff apparently has already announced some supposed candidacy for me, he also hijacks my disagreement with Kelly Girtz by working, as he routinely does, to connect two non-related issues and push forward some agenda he's been mulling around in his mind. It's sweet, really, so I responded to some of his criticisms.
- Not much to say about this article except that it reaffirms something I've felt since my days in college ... and that's Conrad Fink is full of it. I know, I know, he's an institution at the University of Georgia, but I've always felt he was a self-righteous hack, but maybe I'm alone on that. Here he argues that newspapers shouldn't have opinion pages.
- When folks say things like 'to making hunting fair, they need to give the animals weapons' ... they probably never met this deer.
- One series down gentlemen.
- Just 'a function of your location?' OK, that's sweet, but the reality is Pendergrass and Arcade clean up on traffic tickets because they have this massive, four-lane bypass and then tell you to go only 35 or 45 miles per hour on it.
- Using the SCHIP discussion as my example, I've become a fan of the good reporting found in many McClatchy publications.
- While Jeff apparently has already announced some supposed candidacy for me, he also hijacks my disagreement with Kelly Girtz by working, as he routinely does, to connect two non-related issues and push forward some agenda he's been mulling around in his mind. It's sweet, really, so I responded to some of his criticisms.
- Not much to say about this article except that it reaffirms something I've felt since my days in college ... and that's Conrad Fink is full of it. I know, I know, he's an institution at the University of Georgia, but I've always felt he was a self-righteous hack, but maybe I'm alone on that. Here he argues that newspapers shouldn't have opinion pages.
- When folks say things like 'to making hunting fair, they need to give the animals weapons' ... they probably never met this deer.
- One series down gentlemen.
posted by Jmac at 6:31 AM
12 Comments:
Fink is right.
This college crap-head has no Constitutional protection from sanction when he writes "F*** Bush," and the school officials who hide the behind the First Amendment are either ignorant or wimpish, or more probably both.
The First Amendment says we can't throw you in jail for what you say or write. It doesn't say you can't be otherwise sanctioned for what you say or write.
If you don't believe that, walk into your boss's office and call him an SOB, and see how well your First Amendment blanket covers you when you're draped in it at the unemployment office.
The newspaper can fire you if you write badly; in fact, they'd be expected to. That's not censorship; that's editing, as is deciding what to leave in and what to leave out and what to do about what should have been left out.
Newspapers can't censor; in fact, only the government can censor.
You're misunderstanding my argument.
I ain't defending the kid who wrote the Bush editorial since that was immature, selfish and devoid of rational criticism. It's up the newspaper to determine what to do with him.
So I don't disagree.
My criticism of Finks stems from his belief, which is one he puts forth frequently, that newspapers shouldn't put forward opinions. Fink likes to brag that he's never voted in an election since becoming a journalist so he can remain unbiased.
I think that's a silly way to approach one's profession.
Shouldn't put forward political opinions, or any opinions? Does he attend a church, eat at restaurants, contribute to charities, &tc?
Not that Burger King or First Presbyterian are the same as political ideology, but aren't there reviews in newspapers about movies, recipes, places to take the kids, or pieces written by people giving advice about Family Living or how to Invest Wisely, and so on? Does Fink talk about that as extraneous to journalism, too?
I've heard of journalists like that. I think it's silly to be that way; even siller to let the world know you're that way. But whatever.
You're right: it's difficult, if not impossible, to be a journalistic purist. It's also quite probably unnecessary. So that extent, we are certainly in agreement.
I am, and have long been, a worshipper in the Cult of Fink. I love the man, and learned more from him than any teacher I've ever had at any level.
And he's right. A newspaper has no business giving its own opinions on anything. (Having outsiders publish their own opinion columns is another matter). This is mostly where people get their "that is a liberal/conservative rag" criticisms from, because they are unaware there is a difference between the front page and the editorials.
Newspapers, and individual journalists, should do everything in their power to present themselves as unbiased, and in-house opinions - especially without by-lines - combat this notion.
Josh, your idealism will be appreciated by the 12 people who are still reading newspapers.
Things evolve. You'll notice we're not using 8-track tapes anymore (kids, ask your parents).
I don't know that newspapers ought to cater to the people who are too stupid to tell the difference between the front page and the op-ed page. Admittedly, in some papers, it is hard to tell (hello, NY Times). But that's an indictment of the folks who write for the front page, not the folks who write for the op-ed page.
Newspapers, and individual journalists, should do everything in their power to present themselves as unbiased
Anyone who can do this is both a piss poor writer, and a liar to boot.
We all know that no one is unbiased about anything from favorite brand of hamburger to religion to political persuasion.
No one can totally suppress their bias, and so one who claims to do so, is starting from a position of inaccuracy and deception to start with. This is not to say the every piece of reportage should sound like a George Wills opinion piece. But if one wants to be intellectually honest, and produce pieces that people are willing to read, the honest reporter will recognize the biases and address them.
Just 'a function of your location?' OK, that's sweet, but the reality is Pendergrass and Arcade clean up on traffic tickets because they have this massive, four-lane bypass and then tell you to go only 35 or 45 miles per hour on it
If you really want a hoot, get the weekly Jackson Herald. It lists every arrest by every police jurisdiction in the county.
It has been on Pendergrass' case for months. Not only is it financing the town through traffic fines, but the overwhelming number of arrests (about 80-90% depending on the month) are of people with Hispanic surnames. You just know how all those little brown people like to zoom around.
Word of Warning -----Arcade has extended its city limits about a mile south along 129, along with that wonderful 45 MPH speed limit.
Newspapers, and individual journalists, should do everything in their power to present themselves as unbiased, and in-house opinions - especially without by-lines - combat this notion.
Fair enough, but you, having had some experience in newspapers as well, also recognize the difference between the editorial staff and the reporting staff? That it's different for, say, a reporter to be firing off opinions and columns than for a paid editorial writer to be doing the same thing.
I'm all for reporters abstaining from editorial content, but it's OK for newspapers to have staffs devoted to producing commentary and opinion.
"No one can totally suppress their bias, and so one who claims to do so, is starting from a position of inaccuracy and deception to start with..."
And that's why I said, "Newspapers, and individual journalists, should do everything in their power to present themselves as unbiased..."
In a news story, the reporter's feelings are meaningless. His or her job is just to lay out the facts without making a judgment on any of them.
Jmac: Take the AJC for example. Their in-house editorials are largely liberal. And like it or not, the rest of the paper suffers from that distinction. Every news story now has to battle that perceived bias (and yes, there are conservative papers that do this too. I just picked my hometown one.)
A newspaper should do everything in its power to avoid an appearance of bias, be it to the right or left. Having an editorial staff is a direct affront to that. (And I'm actually against bylines for many of the same reasons).
His or her job is just to lay out the facts without making a judgment on any of them.
It's just silly to keep on saying that. That means that you would virtually eliminate all descriptive words (aka "adjectives" and "adverbs") and action verbs from your writing. O.K. you can write like a ninth grader, but see how many people pay hard earned money to buy your pallid prose.
Newsflash --- this just in -- the 124 literate people in the country who actually do spend their hard earned money on a pulpwood product do so because the editorial "slant" of the news is agreeable to them.
As soon as you use a descriptive word, describing a tenement as "squalid", wounds as "horrible", a suspect as "fleeing", you have made a value judgment and have expressed an opinion. That is the essence of good writing.
Even the news that is chosen to reported is a value statement --- even our beloved ABH doesn't print reams of information every day, and the decision what to print and what not to print is a value judgment.
For ex.: the ABH carries no news about outdoor activities such as hunting and fishing, even though both of these are major activities in the region. This "non-action" is as much an "opinion" as printing articles with an anti-hunting or fishing bias.
"That means that you would virtually eliminate all descriptive words (aka "adjectives" and "adverbs") and action verbs from your writing."
That's what interviews (aka "quotes") are for. You let the subjects add the color.
Post a Comment
<< Home