tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5314448479497631270.post4224946772614543438..comments2023-04-14T15:49:59.069+03:00Comments on Torn Halves: Media Impartiality: the Polite Nihilism of the BBCTorn Halveshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05484735405128600839noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5314448479497631270.post-57500382370718164692009-03-17T12:19:00.000+02:002009-03-17T12:19:00.000+02:00Werther, you put it starkly, but accurately, corre...Werther, you put it starkly, but accurately, correctly. And since the Thatcher-Reagan era every social activity, including schooling it seems, is to be run along corporate lines. Corporate Totalitarianism. For Adorno and Horkheimer, the rise and rise of instrumental reason. The decline of anything that could be called Western Culture (which comes increasingly to seem like something that might only be found on a DVD given away free with a Sunday magazine - because it can't even be sold any longer).Torn Halveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05484735405128600839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5314448479497631270.post-19668750055967761562009-03-16T17:59:00.000+02:002009-03-16T17:59:00.000+02:00I didn't read the whole post. But I'll give my tak...I didn't read the whole post. But I'll give my take: these are corporations, dedicated to the profit motive; what would it mean for such an organization to take a stand on anything? To take a stand requires having beliefs, a worldview, a theory. A corporation has none of those things, and the behavior of every individual in it is ruthlessly subordinated to its ultimate purpose (that's called efficiency). All a corporation has is money, and in terms of "beliefs," that translates into reflecting as transparently as possible the worldview of your audience, as well as you are able to determine it. In a pluralistic society, for mass media, that effectively means having no beliefs at all - and the result is, as you point out, nihilism.Lucienhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06991287827933849844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5314448479497631270.post-86950751224925888262009-03-16T15:03:00.000+02:002009-03-16T15:03:00.000+02:00Thanks to Lisa and Kumtoi for those comments. I ta...Thanks to Lisa and Kumtoi for those comments. I take it that there is no essential disagreement. In connection with Kumtoi's point, it is sad the way the discourse of impartiality twists values into something called "bias". Lisa is also right that so much (all?) of journalism is about selling copy, and this is another aspect of the commodification of culture, and since the media are such an important part of the democratic process it also amounts to the commodification of democracy (if that makes sense).Torn Halveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05484735405128600839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5314448479497631270.post-56929659296677667972009-03-16T12:41:00.000+02:002009-03-16T12:41:00.000+02:00Journalist that promote comprehension and judgment...Journalist that promote comprehension and judgment work for think tanks. Anything else is just about selling copy.<BR/><BR/>As for the Bout case - on the one hand, you have the United States' political and military establishments while on the other, you have the Soviet (and later Russian) political and military establishments. A proxy war is being fought the courts of Thailand.<BR/><BR/>The interesting twist is that the U.S. has used Bout's services to deliver arms and personnel just as much as anyone else. By burying Bout, they're trying to burn the evidence.Lisa Pietschhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01821332173181660648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5314448479497631270.post-32843697225011551062009-03-16T03:23:00.000+02:002009-03-16T03:23:00.000+02:00The issue with impartiality is that it is impossib...The issue with impartiality is that it is impossible. Everyone has stuff that influences their point of view. What we can have are honest reporters, as in people who honestly relay what they see.<BR/><BR/>The question is not what view a person holds but why that view is held. Is the person an automaton of a political party or perspective, or is the person holding an honest position of persuasion by the facts gathered up to that point.<BR/><BR/>A candid dialogue between two non-dogmatic opposing points of view is far more interesting and informative than the sorry attempts at impartiality.<BR/><BR/>There is nothing wrong with bias. Sometimes the facts point squarely to one conclusion (e.g. child prostitution and murder for body parts is wrong). The bias must simply be declared.<BR/><BR/>Thinking that one can report the news without personal bias entering into it is simply arrogant.Kümtoihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12984597403000409382noreply@blogger.com