Reporter fired for being objective

You'd think this would happen on Fox or MSNBC - but apparently local news sources are tossing objectivity out the window too..

Atlanta Progressive News fires reporter for trying to be objective

At a very fundamental, core level, Springston did not share our vision for a news publication with a progressive perspective. He held on to the notion that there was an objective reality that could be reported objectively, despite the fact that that was not our editorial policy at Atlanta Progressive News. It just wasn’t the right fit.

Hmmm.. ok they make no bones about not being objective. This guy evidently thought news should be (and I'll admit - I tend to agree with him) and it didn't work out.

But, what they say later got me to thinking...

APN, on the other hand, does not pretend to be objective. We believe that our news coverage is fair and that our progressive principles are fair. We aim when possible to give voice to all sides, but aim to provide something different than what is already provided by corporate sources.”

Ok in the above they say they are not objective. However they say they are fair and give voice to all sides.

Maybe its just me - but regardless of the left / right slant - is it possible for a news source (or anyone) be fair but not objective? I'm not seeing how its possible.

yes, in the old days , he would be a hero, now we got squat!

You can try to be objective and succeed most of the time but if there is a story that you have the slightest opinion on or personal interest in your own believes on the subject will come through no matter how small.

A news source could be fair by letting two sides of an issue write an article for them but neither one would be objective. So they would be fair but not objective.

Just tossing that out there. I think I confused myself.

After reading the link and comments I have yet to find what particular instance prompted the firing. It seems they have an agenda at AP and that writer didn;t fit in with their type of propaganda.
You have a point thought in that objective reporters are precisely what we need. Where can we find any?

its one of the many things that made me quit seeking a position in journalism (at least for the moment) and take up programming

"fair and balanced" looks excellent in a slogan, but rarely is the reporting, or material reported on, ever fair OR balanced.

The title is "The Atlanta PROGRESSIVE News." Their mission is to be partisan. Would anyone raise an eyebrow if "The Catholic Observer" fired a reporter because he objectively found religion ridiculous? No, probably not. And it is possible to be "fair" and partisan. One sometimes sees this in polite debates. "Yes, you're right about that point, BUT..." So not much here, really.

reply to post by DJW001


Yes yes nothing to see the news isn't news its a long editorial paid for through advertising. Why should we raise an eyebrow when a reporter doesn't do is robotic duty to report what is given to them to report. Why get wrankled when all of our news comes from a few "official" source? What point is there in having journalists invesitgate the good, bad and the ugly in our world? Its counterproductive to the society of "hopes and dreams". (Sarcasm off)

Personally a paper shouldn't have a "slant" as if there selling a different flavour of ice cream or something. The fact that it does, tells me its about catering to a market first, getting in bed with advertisers who seek that market, entertaining and in a distant fourth, informing people.

Cheers

reply to post by thebulldog

I agree with you. It would be nice if journalism were objective, and there are still some newspapers and TV outlets that try. In this specific case we're not talking about one of those.

reply to post by Eisgeist


I think i uderstand what you are saying by fair but not objective. Its like the legislation that was proposed to make news talk radio fair. Basically people on the left were pissed off because the majority of these programs were right wing whackos like rush.

every time a left wing program started it quickly went under because of a lack of listeners. so left wing lobbyist decided theat the airwaves should be FAIR and proposed mandatory airtime for left wing talk that equalled right wing talk.

I dont think the goal was really to succefully implement a talk show on the radio for the peoople of the left, i think it was more an attempt to kill right wing shows my effectively cutting their profitability in half by cutting their airtime in half.

further, a fair approach like this willl always be a fallacy because their are not two sides on any issue, there can be many different points of views. So if we are talking about giving fair coverage than I want to see equal time for libertarian views, anarchist views, socialist views, totalitarian views, etc.

much llike the difference between free trade and fair trade, fair has just become another label for them to justify oppressing certain groups, and then patting themselves on the back for it

reply to post by DJW001



Right - I agree with that we are not.

I don't have a problem with them firing him because of his slant (or lack of a slant) because they make no bones about having a slant. That this paper appears to slant left vs one that may slant right doesn't matter. He tried to be objective - they said that doesn't work for us so they let him go.

To use your example for a right slant I wouldn't think the "Catholic Observer" would be objective either - I wouldn't expect them to be. Likewise I wouldn't expect the Atlanta Progressive to be either. We also know not to expect much of the MSM (Fox, MSNBC, etc) to be objective.

I'm still thinking it would be very difficult to be fair and partisan.

In the debate example say I represent opinion A and you represent opinion B. However, I host the debate, I write the rules of the debate, I write the questions, I can change the rules, questions, etc at any time during the debate. I reserve the right to edit both our answers before presenting them to the public.

That is certainly not objective - but is fair? I'm allowing both sides - I'm just picking, controlling and editing what I allow. If I opening claim not be objective - how can I make people believe I'm fair?

Or, if I just tell them what they want to hear - will they think I'm fair?

EDIT -

Oops - I forgot - and its amazing how easy that is to do.

Its the 800lb gorilla sitting in the room that is so easily overlooked. When it comes to objectivity and fairness in news - how does "truth" come in to play and how important is it?





[edit on 18-2-2010 by Frogs]

Can you imagine trying to cover the holocaust "objectively", or covering the case of a serial child killer "objectively"? Most people see that there are right choices and wrong choices. The corporate media pretends that equal weight should be given to both sides. Apparently, this newspaper in question felt that it wanted to give greater weight to what it considered the proper, "progressive" choice and perspective.

Are jury trials of self-proclaimed child murderers objective or fair? I would suggest that all the jury has a bias against child murder, making them non-objective, but that doesn't mean they can't render a "fair" verdict.

For the record, the corporate media pretend to be fair and objective but are rarely either.