What if a particular media source chose to only report positive, uplifting events?

[Brutha]

I agree, for straight up NEWS, unbiased is best.

Actually you don't agree with anything above. He said/she said journalism is usually not very deep.
If a government official lies there nothing wrong with calling it a lie.
Good journalism takes stances.

You can't check and balance while being neutral.

[James81]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

I'm going to mumble something incoherent and useless about how no one is really unbiased and the most important thing is to make clear that something is your opinion rather than not inserting one at all.

Why would you worry about making that clear?

I think it's better to just assume that when someone speaks, they are speaking from their opinion and not talking for the whole human race. Because, really, everytime you and I say, write, or convey something? We are giving it from our perspective.

It gets awfully tedious to keep saying "In my opinion"...well, duh! Everything you say is your opinion!

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by James81

Why would you worry about making that clear?

I think it's better to just assume that when someone speaks, they are speaking from their opinion and not talking for the whole human race. Because, really, everytime you and I say, write, or convey something? We are giving it from our perspective.

It gets awfully tedious to keep saying "In my opinion"...well, duh! Everything you say is your opinion!

It's not a matter of knowing it's their opinion: it's knowing what their opinion is. I mean, we do have spokesmen, and the good ones acknowledge that they attempt to speak for the people they represent. So sometimes people are speaking for some large group.

But yeah, what you're saying is part of the reasoning behind why I think emotion is good. Acknowledging and embracing that it's really just your perspective is a good thing.

[ssandra]

Originally Posted by Brutha

You can't check and balance while being neutral.

Of course you can.

You can report on people lying without inserting your opinion into that (such as; but they are right anyway, it is understandable, it is horrifying, it is absolutely awful etc).

[James81]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

It's not a matter of knowing it's their opinion: it's knowing what their opinion is. I mean, we do have spokesmen, and the good ones acknowledge that they attempt to speak for the people they represent. So sometimes people are speaking for some large group.

But yeah, what you're saying is part of the reasoning behind why I think emotion is good. Acknowledging and embracing that it's really just your perspective is a good thing.

Even those who think they are speaking for the group are really just speaking for themselves.

[Andrew Brunelle]

I would say that a show that focuses on just good news wouldn't last long, due to ratings decline. Ratings are highest when there is some kind of tragedy, and people supposedly watch the news more if it is negative, and that way the pharmaceutical companies can sell you their drugs to make you feel better about the world around you. Cannot tell you how many anti-depressant and other drug commercials there are here in America.

I think most reporters are not into getting the positive or uplifting stories. It's all about uncovering some secret or reporting on some big tragedy, like 9/11 or the one in Japan. There are a few reporters who do post the positive stuff, but it is few and far between. It's too bad, but that's what the people supposedly want, according to ratings. There used to be a TV show that I was on once (doing stand-up) called Not the News. It didn't have negative stories, but it also wasn't very interesting. It was just 2 people talking back and forth about local things to do...

If my memory is correct, Erin had a post about how there used to be a show about the brighter side of the news where she lived and it got canceled pretty fast. I believe the article is called Why I Never Watch the News. It was called And the good news is... Didn't last very long...so maybe they should have put it on before the original news.

[Brutha]

You can report on people lying without inserting your opinion into that (such as; but they are right anyway, it is understandable, it is horrifying, it is absolutely awful etc).

If you say that one side of a debate is lying you are taking a position on the debate.

(such as; but they are right anyway, it is understandable, it is horrifying, it is absolutely awful etc).

Simply judging something as understandable isn't having a very strong opinion.
Opinions that gets expressed in a single sentence generally aren't worth much.
If a journalist however writes a few paragraphs which lay out reasons about why it's understandable he's doing his job.

Take How the Tiny Kingdom of Bahrain Strong-Armed the President of the United States | FPIF
It's an article with has strong opinion. It also gives the reader a lot of facts. It's decent journalism.

Even those who think they are speaking for the group are really just speaking for themselves.

That a mistaken assumption. A lot of people take in public positions with are a group consensus but in which they don't believe themselves.

[Curtis2011]

Originally Posted by James81

What if a particular media source chose to only report positive, uplifting events?

Honestly, it would probably be a huge failure.

This is because "the news" is not actually a public service like many people think it is, but a business model.

The business model goes:

1. Get people's attention.
2. Put ads in front of them.
3. Get paid by advertisers.

And the news outlets have discovered that the best way to get people's attention is to focus mostly on negative events happening around the world today.

"The news" is no different than regular television, except that it shows real events instead of scripted ones. The overall goal of a news station is still the same as any other television channel: make a profit.


I heard one statistic that said that for every positive story in the news, there are about seven negative stories. This sounds about right. And really, if a news station stopped broadcasting negative stories, very few people would become "addicted" to constant positive stories the way they do with negative stories. This is simply how the human ego works. And the news stations want people addicted to their channel, because the higher the number of viewers, the more the advertisers are willing to pay.

[joyfulgrowth]

Just wanted to throw in that there is an abundance of good news out there (this is just a selection), and there are lots of people who care about sharing a good vibe:

Global Good News - Inspiring good news, positive trends and happy news from the world news in order to promote happiness - 17 March 2011
DailyGood: News That Inspires
Happy News - Real News. Compelling Stories. Always Positive.
Inspirational Stories. Bringing positive & good news. The Optimist
Good News Network
Up Beat - Positive, Optimisitic, Inspiring Good News Stories
Good News Good: One Parrot Fish Can Create a Ton of Sand Per Year
http://www.positivenews.net/news_links.htm
Positive News - Reports on People, Events & Influences that are creating a Positive Future
Good News Gazette - News at the Speed of Nice!
The Great News Network | great news for a change
Good News Agency -♥ Home page
Welcome To The Happy Times Newspaper
Good News Daily - The Woohoo! Report
Good Mood News - Only Good News.
Google Directory - News♥>♥Alternative♥>♥Good♥News

[surfjam]

Originally Posted by ssandra

Of course you can.

You can report on people lying without inserting your opinion into that (such as; but they are right anyway, it is understandable, it is horrifying, it is absolutely awful etc).

I almost never disagree with Brutha, you are very wise, but I agree with ssandra on this one. In fact, I don't think you are a true check or balance once you inject opinion into a report. Not that opinions are bad, they just have a place and need to be clearly defined as opinion articles/shows, etc..

Unfortunately, journalism schools have taught activism for decades so there's not much real journalism any more.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by surfjam

In fact, I don't think you are a true check or balance once you inject opinion into a report.

Explain that one?

[Brutha]

Unfortunately, journalism schools have taught activism for decades so there's not much real journalism any more.

The orthodox mainstream media outlets like CNN don't think of themselves as doing activism.

In fact, I don't think you are a true check or balance once you inject opinion into a report.

Could you point to a piece of journalism that you both consider to be free of opinion and uncovering a major scandal?

[ssandra]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Could you point to a piece of journalism that you both consider to be free of opinion and uncovering a major scandal?

The piece you linked to earlier... I only read the first 3 or 4 paragraphs, but that to me seemed informational, not opinionated. Nor overly negative or positive. Just facts wrapped in a story.

[surfjam]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Explain that one?

If journalists are an important check/balance to the powers that be, then they give up that power when they cross the line of opinion because their reporting becomes perceived as bias.

That is because IM(not humble enough)O to be an effective check/balance, you have to be trusted to be 100% objective. If you can't be trusted your readership/following will dwindle down to only those who share your opinion/bias.

Note that there are opinion writers and opinion shows that are very successful, but they are not journalists or are not attempting to appear objective at that time.

An example of the opposite would be nearly every American newspaper with their dwindling readerships. Newspaper journalists were the first to buy into the new school thinking that journalists need to be activists and as the readers learned this, they quit reading. Newspapers blame the internet, cable news and any others source they can come up with to avoid looking at themselves, but they are the canaries in the journalism mine alerting the world that activism and reporting do not mix. According to Tom Blumer of NewsBusters, "If bias and lack of trust isn't part of the reason for the poor performance in online revenue growth compared to overall online revenues (while certain "nontraditional" news sites have achieved stellar revenue growth), what is?"

Also, look at TV news. Fox stresses "Fair & Balanced" and, whether you like their balance or not, they are killing every other TV news source. The mainstream channels are scrambling to backtrack and look more balanced themselves while the cable news channels that are most entrenched in activism are barely a spec in the ratings.

[surfjam]

Originally Posted by Brutha

The orthodox mainstream media outlets like CNN don't think of themselves as doing activism.
Could you point to a piece of journalism that you both consider to be free of opinion and uncovering a major scandal?

You can't view the trend by looking at it up close and picking apart individual stories, you have to look at it from a distance by observing the flow of following.

[Brutha]

The piece you linked to earlier... I only read the first 3 or 4 paragraphs, but that to me seemed informational, not opinionated.

You seem to care more about the presentation then whether it's actually opinionated.
The outlet sees itself as having a clearly expressed political agenda while a mainstream media outlet like CNN doesn't see itself as having a clearly expressed political agenda.

Just facts wrapped in a story.

It's the story that matters.

[ssandra]

Originally Posted by Brutha

You seem to care more about the presentation then whether it's actually opinionated.
The outlet sees itself as having a clearly expressed political agenda while a mainstream media outlet like CNN doesn't see itself as having a clearly expressed political agenda.

Like I said, I didn't read the entire thing, and even less look at the website.

Just looking at the story, first few paragraphs, they represent facts. Not opinions. Maybe only facts from only one side, that's possible. I don't know the website enough.

But I didn't see them inserting wordings like "and who knows if they'll be on time" or "what would happen if.." and "this is an outrage and will cause the next apocalypse"

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by surfjam

If journalists are an important check/balance to the powers that be, then they give up that power when they cross the line of opinion because their reporting becomes perceived as bias.

That is because IM(not humble enough)O to be an effective check/balance, you have to be trusted to be 100% objective. If you can't be trusted your readership/following will dwindle down to only those who share your opinion/bias.

So you're explaining that journalism has to be 100% objective because you won't trust them unless they're 100% objective.

This isn't an explanation.

[Brutha]

If you can't be trusted your readership/following will dwindle down to only those who share your opinion/bias.

That only true as long as your readership doesn't like to engage in critical thinking.

An example of the opposite would be nearly every American newspaper with their dwindling readerships.

The big US papers like the New York Times publish neocons as well as people like Krugman. They try to be neutral.

The appearance that the New York Times is a liberal paper doesn't come from the fact that the journalists at the paper see themselves as activists but from a well organized spin campaign on the American right.
No pictures based papers where authors take stances like Foreign Affairs and The economist did quite well.

But I didn't see them inserting wordings like "and who knows if they'll be on time" or "what would happen if.." and "this is an outrage and will cause the next apocalypse"

They are serious about their activism. "and who knows if they'll be on time" is something you say to make a story appear more alive. It's not a good rhetorical strategy to convince an audience of your viewpoints.

[ssandra]

Originally Posted by Brutha

They are serious about their activism. "and who knows if they'll be on time" is something you say to make a story appear more alive. It's not a good rhetorical strategy to convince an audience of your viewpoints.

I'm not a writer, nor a journalist. I just gave some off the top of my head examples.

Could you maybe point me to which part of that article you consider opinionated then?

[Brutha]

Could you maybe point me to which part of that article you consider opinionated then?

It's political intent. It doesn't try to tell both sides of the story.

[ssandra]

Originally Posted by Brutha

It's political intent. It doesn't try to tell both sides of the story.

I don't understand that. Could you explain?

[Brutha]

Let me give you an example about what being neutral means:

Consider the following news stories:

A: Bob said that Joe is an *******.
B: Bob said that Joe is an ******* but Anna who knows Joe says that he's a nice guy.
C: Joe didn't give his wife Carol any present on valentines day and said that he didn't felt guilty about his behavior.
D: Joe couldn't buy his wife Carol any present for valentines day. He says that he lost his job and has no money.

Those news stories could all be about the same incident.
A is very bad gossipy style.
B is neutral he said / she said journalism.
C is one sided fact based journalism.
D is neutral fact based journalism.

Provided everything is true C wouldn't appear to be opinionated. It however takes a clear position.
American mainstream media often boils down to practicing B. To stay neutral the journalists gives the two sides of the debate.
The reader however doesn't get to see any facts to form his own opinion.

If we take case like Bahrain there also the problem of short term thinking. Reading daily news gives you the events of the day and how some protesters might have been beat up by the police. It doesn't really give you a deep insight of the situation.
To get an insight it's best to read in dept articles from different sources that argue for different positions.

Outlets that take specific positions provide the reader a clear case. The reader can evaluate the claims and see whether he agrees with them.
If one news outlet raises a specific stories and others think it's important they write their take on the same story.
A newspaper should focus on getting their facts right and providing insight. It doesn't necessarily have to tell both sides of the story. Taking all of your information from one source isn't a good idea anyway.
Especially in cases where one side is just wrong it's bad when mainstream media stays neutral and pretends that both sides of the debate are somehow equal.

[Michael Chui]

As a random, here's a positive, uplifting piece of good news:

Millions saved in Japan by good engineering and government building codes : Thoughts from Kansas

And then someone points to the same thing from a publisher with more access:

Japan’s Strict Codes and Drills Are Seen as Lifesavers - NYTimes.com