“Modern journalism is about providing the kind of spin your audience is interested in.”
-Salman Rushdie
(heavily paraphrased, just as he would like it)
The consumer of news media/journalism is not asking for an objective opinion. They are instead asking for the confirmation of their own biases. The point of the market is to provide enough unique outlets for the specific type of bias prevalent in society.
There is no such thing as objective journalism. If you think an article on say Jirgas should have quotes from thirty different analysts, it means that this is what you believe to be a standard of objectivity. That is the bias you have that you wish to have fulfilled.
That’s why the Daily Show and The O’Reilly Factor are the biggest news shows in America. It’s because both present the kind of experience that their consumers are demanding. It’s important to note that in order to maintain the idea they represent, both Jon Stewart and Bill O’Reilly go through great pain to assert that they are not ‘conventional’ journalists. Stewart maintains that his show is about shits and giggles. O’Reilly has the “No Spin Zone’ to try and assert that while news is always spin, in his zone there is no such cause for concern.
Try telling that to the millions that tune into their shows. The very fact that both hosts deny they are ‘conventional’ journalists serves to boost their credibility in the eyes of their viewers.
"Some of today's top journalists appeal to distinct constituencies reflecting the nature of their audiences. For example, Bill O'Reilly tops the list of most admired journalists among Republicans – 10% name the Fox News Channel talk show host. Only 2% of Democrats and Independents name O'Reilly. Much of Katie Couric's support comes from women: 7% of women name Couric as the news person they admire most compared to 2% of men. And Jon Stewart, host of the Daily Show on Comedy Central, is popular mainly with young people. Among those under age 30, 6% say Stewart is their favorite journalist, making him along with O'Reilly the top pick among this age group. This compares with less than 1% of those over age 30, who admire Stewart most."
Forget objectivity. You can never have that. Consider the following two sentences:
“Thus it can be argued that the idea of nationhood is little more than the idea of a corporate brand.”
“Thus it can be argued that the idea of nationhood is just as important as the idea of a corporate brand.”
Both sentences are saying the same thing – that brands and nationhood are pretty much the same. But one implies that brands are shit, and thus so are nations. The other says that ‘look, this is how good brands are, and nations can be just as good.’
Maybe you don’t like the example. Who cares what you think. The point is that bias is impossible to avoid when you have to make a value judgment. Want to know how ‘reputable’ news organizations get around this problem? They blame it on someone else.
Specifically, they refer to ‘analysts’ or ‘anonymous sources who wished to maintain their privacy because of the sensitivity of the subject matter.’ Or if they are just fucking desperate, they refer to ‘word on the street.’ It doesn’t really matter. And it’s not necessarily true that they just make up these mysterious sources. The sad truth is that a source with a given opinion can always be found.
You want to slag off Musharraf? You invite Imran Khan, or Qazi Hussein to your show. Don’t have to say anything yourself, yet you can get him to be your mouthpiece.
And there is no objectivity to this. Because even if you think that inviting these particular people will make the show anti-Musharraf, you know that inviting Malik Qayyum or someone would make it slant the other way. Or you can get someone who is supposed to be impartial, and you’ll get a mouthful of Western based academic thought, mostly associated with the idea of building democratic institutions and what not. Or you can invite an apolitical mullah (they do exist you know) and get a mouthful of Islamic nationalist-pan nationalist rhetoric.
And if you’ve been in the business for a while, you KNOW which guests to invite for what kind of show. It’s not like you can avoid it.
What gets me tickled to no end is how people think the media has a lot of power. They do have it, but it’s not like they can be completely autocratic about it. See they can’t force you to watch what they are showing. They need you to be watching. So they will play to the galleries.
Don’t blame them for it, it’s their job*.
*In fact, fuck all of you self righteous types. Like you were ever part of something beyond reproach. Learn to make changes, and not just pick on something you can complain about from a high horse, while continuing to live like a selfish prick the rest of the time.
So the media can’t make enemies until someone has enemies. Then they dress up the bandwagon and offer people free rides. And like a successful amusement park, the point is to get people to come on your rides. Little else.
And no, the media has no other responsibility. Because if it did, it should have its employees paid by your pocket. You are not paying shit, so stop thinking you have a say over what is aired. All you can do is switch the channel until you find someone who speaks your kind of bias
