MSM

Bias: Fox News, Amy Jacobson & Boing Boing

By Maegan Carberry ⋅ July 8, 2008 ⋅   Email this post ⋅  Digg This ⋅  Share on Facebook ⋅  Print this post ⋅ Post a comment

The last thing you want in a fierce criticism of Fox news is a "Correction Appended" notice burying your lead, but David Carr’s story in yesterday’s New York Times media section raised some thought-provoking questions about objectivity in reporting. (The fact in question had to do with the ownership of TV Guide, and you can read the deets at the jumps.)

As I recently argued in this HuffPost piece , objectivity is an impossible, admirable standard, but it is possible for good journalists to achieve a sufficient degree of fairness in their reporting. One of the great advantages to news consumers in the MSM-Blog Hypbrid Information Age is that we have access to different levels of credibility. We can expect professional journalists to approach the news with balance, and we can expect bloggers to share their knowledge through their unique lenses, like a never-ending Op Ed section featuring topics of consequence to kitties and knitting circles.

In either sphere, however, there is always going to be abuse and agendas. Reading Carr today, I was reminded of a couple perfect examples of this that appeared in my RSS reader this morning.

When I was visiting Chicago last summer, the rage was all focused on CBS Channel 2 reporter Amy Jacobson, who ill-advisedly spent a day at the home of a source (who was considered a suspect in the case of his wife’s disappearance) in her bathing suit while on the job. Phil Rosenthal reported yesterday that she has now filed a $1 million lawsuit asserting that the news station had humiliated her when she was "one of the best in the business."

Meanwhile, the New York Times reports on a group of irate readers of the eclectic community site, Boing Boing, who are angry that editors recently removed 70 old posts by a contributor called Violet Blue. As one commenter quoted in the Times report put it:

“I have much respect for all of the BB editors, but this really does seem hypocritical … How is this any different than a sitewide filter to remove any reference to a particular phrase?”

According to the Times, the editor being challenged responded by saying it wasn’t some sort of "weird cover up," but a personal matter. She was quoted as saying, "it seemed natural to make the decision … None of us confer. We don’t have specific beats. There is no process in which posts are approved.”

Obviously both of these instances involve judgment calls, and as Carr noted we expect our news organizations to act in the public interest. But what is the public supposed to think when it’s no longer clear what good judgment is, or rather, who is responsible for it?

In the case of Jacobson, the inappropriate actions are fairly clear cut, but the others are murky. There are plenty of red state Bible thumpers who think Roger Ailes is a prophet of the truth, exposing the liberal agenda, while the New York Times fact checkers can’t even get basic facts straight. Their corresponding blue state hippies would feel their stomachs churn reading Carr’s quotes from reporters giving a single iota of credibility to O’Reilly and Co. by boasting of their positive relationships with Fox News (until their pictures get tampered with, of course!). Those who would defect to the blogosphere in frustration with MSM can’t hold their communities responsible because in the realm of online publishing, you can always take it back with a hearty JK.

The aforementioned advantage we retain, however, is the ability to be interactive news consumers on all levels. You don’t have to passively consume what is provided to you. Most stories have a writer’s e-mail address as well as comments sections. It’s up to individuals to keep things in check by voicing expectations and seeking out a variety of news sources to form a well-informed opinion. The truth is in deciphering the collective story.