The New York Times finds its voice
Objectivism in journalism is dead. In fact it never really existed, and the unrealistic expectations we’ve had of journalists has led to a distrust of the media because those expectations are almost never met. While many still manage to decry the “liberal bias” in the mainstream media and the New York Times, there’s a growing number of media critics who are arguing that it’s time for the New York Times to embrace its liberal bias, that doing so will give it its voice. In previous years, when ad sales were booming, it could afford to shroud itself in the Objectivity Myth, but no more.
I definitely fall in the latter camp. You can be liberal and report the news, and assuming otherwise is to engage in the logical fallacy that all opinions are created equal. As Stephen Colbert would say, reality has a well-known liberal bias.
So this is why I was heartened to see an article this morning titled A Subdued Clinton, and a Subdued Audience. In it, you’ll find all kinds of journalistic violations that you’d never see in your average newspaper.
Let’s start with the lede. Rather than going with the boring, top-down inverse pyramid approach, the writer goes with metaphor:
On the day Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton was endorsed by the governor of North Carolina, a supporter gave her a three-foot-long balloon replica of herself, complete with blond hair, black pantsuit and wide pink smile, which Mrs. Clinton promptly took on her plane and laughingly showed off to reporters.
On Thursday, little more than two weeks later, the doll lay on the sofa by her seat on the plane, shriveled and deflated.
After later injecting a funny quote from David Letterman, she writes this:
It has always been difficult for Mrs. Clinton to compete against an opponent who once received thunderous applause for blowing his nose. But as Mr. Obama seized nearly every headline in the last several days, Mrs. Clinton appeared zapped of her usual enthusiasm.
See, that’s what I call voice! This is the stuff that will attract readers’ eyes as the paper faces increasing competition from blogs and other online news sites.
Although I for one enjoy reading news pieces that feel as if they were written by an actual human being, I think news organizations should at least keep up a pretense of objectivity because there is a danger in disclosing bias.
I read somewhere once that instead of seeking out diverse voices and different opinions when it comes to reporting and commenting on the news, people tend to stick with blogs and other media sources written by people who they already know share their worldview. In other words, I don’t sit down to watch Fox News very often, and I stay away from most neocon websites, unless I’m looking to read something funny.
If a news organization brands itself as being outright liberal or outright conservative (such as Fox), it will probably gain a devoted readership/viewership, but people who don’t already identify with that message will likely not tune in. I think it’s fine to have writers who are more transparent in their writing, as exampled in the humane excerpt you included in your post, but the organization should at least try to maintain a sense of objectivity as a whole. Even if it’s only a token.