Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Will the war on objectivity in news media spread to science? Has it already?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Law prof Jonathan Turley explains:

“Objectivity Has Got To Go”: News Leaders Call for the End of Objective Journalism”

We have been discussing the rise of advocacy journalism and the rejection of objectivity in journalism schools. Writers, editors, commentators, and academics have embraced rising calls for censorship and speech controls, including President-elect Joe Biden and his key advisers. This movement includes academics rejecting the very concept of objectivity in journalism in favor of open advocacy.

Columbia Journalism Dean and New Yorker writer Steve Coll decried how the First Amendment right to freedom of speech was being “weaponized” to protect disinformation. In an interview with The Stanford Daily, Stanford journalism professor, Ted Glasser, insisted that journalism needed to “free itself from this notion of objectivity to develop a sense of social justice.” He rejected the notion that journalism is based on objectivity and said that he views “journalists as activists because journalism at its best — and indeed history at its best — is all about morality.” Thus, “Journalists need to be overt and candid advocates for social justice, and it’s hard to do that under the constraints of objectivity.” – February 1, 2023

If social juicest — as understood by the professor — is in conflict with objectivity, perhaps it is also in conflict with reality.

But now, will objectivity come to be seen as a constraint in science too? If so, trust will deteriorate too.

Public trust in media is way down: See Polls: Trust in mainstream U.S. media still in free fall:

A Canadian commentator has noticed a little-publicized fact about last week’s New York Times–Siena College poll of 792 registered voters. While the poll focused on the US mid-term elections next month, the information about how typical voters view mainstream media was most revealing. A majority not only don’t trust media but see them as a threat to democracy: … Media have come a long way since 1969 when an archived poll showed that Americans had strong trust in the press. – October 20, 2022

Perhaps the critical question isn’t whether traditional media are trusted but whether their model can even survive the tsunami of the internet.

You may also wish to read: In Big Tech World: the journalist as censor, hit man, and snitch. Glenn Greenwald looks at a disturbing trend in media toward misrepresentation as well as censorship.

Comments
Vivid Let me share with you a quick experience that illustrates how bias, to a large extent, is, at bottom, a matter of perspective. In the mid 70s I spent two years in Swaziland teaching secondary science as a Peace Corps volunteer. Swaziland (now Eswatini) is virtually surrounded by the Republic of South Africa (RSA) which, at the time, was in the last throes of apartheid and there were ongoing massive riots in the townships like Soweto that elicited brutal responses by the RSA government. It was common for PCVs to travel by hitchhiking in southern and east Africa and I was traveling to Johannesburg on one of my trips and got picked up by a gentleman of British descent. White RSA, at that time, was very polarized between whites of Dutch descent (Afrikaners) and those of English descent. To say they didn't like each other would be a huge understatement. In any event, we got talking politics and I "innocently" asked what it was like between the two white groups in RSA. The gentleman with whom I was riding responded (and this is verbatim because I will never forget it): "These Afrikaner bastards make Barry Goldwater look like a f**king communist." Although, like any other country RSA still has significant problems, it has normalized through a lot of compromise. On the surface, you would have viewed the problem as a black-white problem. But this is where perspective comes in: It was, in many ways a white-white problem and other outgroups were simply caught in the middle as pawns in a larger conflict. Not completely, but enough to make things really complicated. The white groups had completely different agendas. It is unfortunate that the US appears to be moving in exactly the opposite direction. Those of us that came of age during the Vietnam War and civil rights eras have witnessed firsthand the resilience of the US. But someday, if people on both sides of the aisle don't tone it down and start acting like adults, stop demonizing anyone and everyone with whom they disagree, we will see a decline from which we can't escape. I am not as pessimistic as some on this blog, however, I am sick and tired of the bullshit from both the left and the right, Christians and "New" Atheists, you name it, I'm against it types, etc., etc., ad nauseum. Fortunately, being retired, I have the luxury of tuning out if I chose, but it is impossible to totally avoid......chuckdarwin
February 13, 2023
February
02
Feb
13
13
2023
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT
Vivid/29 I re-read your posts @25 and 27 and realize that I mis-read your post @25. It was you that called NPR "a government funded far left propaganda machine." That makes all the difference in the world. My apologies to Breitbart and the Federalist, both bastions of American journalistic integrity.......LOLchuckdarwin
February 13, 2023
February
02
Feb
13
13
2023
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PDT
Vivid, an interesting list. I can see why, though I do not necessarily agree with all [e.g. there is clearly a built in first law evident from and in our nature that is foundational to the due balance of rights, freedoms, duties, which we cannot vote in or out or rule in or out], and certainly, I view the left centre right political spectrum as an utterly outmoded model. The issue is that lawless oligarchy is the natural state of Government (as well as decrees and actions under colour of law), and that July 4, 1776 and Sept 17, 1787 mark a breakthrough of lawful, constitutional self government by a free people. If anyone cannot wholeheartedly endorse this, that is a warning sign. KFkairosfocus
February 13, 2023
February
02
Feb
13
13
2023
12:17 AM
12
12
17
AM
PDT
FP, it is evident that you are indulging in personalities and attempts to poison the well. For example, you will see that I responded to the core concerns I have with PM1. I did not take up his talk point on "translated" as I thought it obviously flawed i/l/o what was already said. Yes, like other phrases or rhetorical hooks, it can be abused, but that is by no means a universal point. There is a legitimate boiling down, there is a taking the charitable view, there is taking a liberal interpretation, there is exposing the hidden or unrecognised danger or error, and there is "translating" -- with sound warrant [something you again evaded on the way to loaded insinuation] -- as a way to render some or all of these. The general principle is, necessary critique or even happy endorsement, alike, must face first duties to truth, right reason, warrant and wider prudence, etc. Are you prepared to endorse those duties, acknowledging them as pervasive first principles, thus self evident, branch on which we sit first duties? KFkairosfocus
February 13, 2023
February
02
Feb
13
13
2023
12:12 AM
12
12
12
AM
PDT
Relatd, the SPJ code is clearly sound in general. A challenging ideal. KFkairosfocus
February 13, 2023
February
02
Feb
13
13
2023
12:01 AM
12
12
01
AM
PDT
Sev, we agree as to principles. I am not so sure they are nearly impossible to implement, they allow us to grade sources and to hold sources accountable thus if we learn and practice [building a culture of wholesomeness], there would be a restoration of lawful conduct on the cyber frontier. For example, it is clear that many major media including the once great BBC, have fallen far and have much coming clean to do before credibility can be restored. As to the mismanagement of the as yet unfinished pandemic, complete with censorship tactics that bring science into disrepute, that is maybe case no 1 on what we have to face and address soberly to restore lawfulness. Given the dominance of the US, the poor state of defamation law there needs fixing: no, there is no right to undermine innocent reputation, including under false colours of freedom and opinion -- we are duty bound to be cautious and respectful of neighbour and of warrant. As for grooming and wider desensitisation to the marketing of gross evil and exploitation, that needs to be exposed and frankly prosecuted. Fraudulent online advertising is just that, fraud; including collusion to promote product ratings. As to the many ideological agendas afoot, a sound comparative difficulties approach will help to sort such out. All of this points to needed education reform too. Where, education fraud (including, dressed up in lab or doctor's coats) is fraud, too. KFkairosfocus
February 12, 2023
February
02
Feb
12
12
2023
11:51 PM
11
11
51
PM
PDT
PM1, I did not ask about bias, but objective warrant. ALL of us have biases, all of us have worldviews, all of us are error prone, so the issue cannot be that these disqualify, or we are right back at the self referential self defeat issue -- precisely what has been sidestepped when I pointed to the first principle pervasive nature of self referentiality on core, basic, hard questions. No, that is why I have emphasised that adequate warrant is the heart of objectivity. In this case, Wikipedia committed a breach of innocent reputation and commits gross libel, while NWE is on target. This is not an issue where one can play the neutral moderator standing aloof from six groping blind men card by suggesting all are equally dubious; the relativism involved in that tactic is itself self referential and self defeating. Instead, we start from first duties of reason, accepting that as responsible, rational, significantly free creatures, we are morally governed by first duties to truth, to right reason, to warrant and wider prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour so too to fairness and justice. Injustice is invariably founded on material untruth, whether error, material gaps or outright lies. In this, first principles of reasoning include addressing deductive and inductive frameworks, including abductive inference to the best explanation. Which of course holds online just as much as across a table in a rum shop, or sitting on genteel verandahs, or in a board room, or a faculty lounge. KFkairosfocus
February 12, 2023
February
02
Feb
12
12
2023
11:31 PM
11
11
31
PM
PDT
Sev re. 2 Hell has frozen over, for once I agree with you does that make me far right? Re 30 I am ok with the moniker hell JFK would be considered on the right ( not far right)judged by today’s standards, The following is some of the things I believe in. FYI I am not a Republican. I view the two parties as somewhat similar to two mafia families fighting for turf. Politicians are in the power business the bigger the government, the more regulations the more power. I am for the rule of law and it’s equal application I believe it is self evident that all men are created equal I am for legal immigration I believe that laws should be constitutional I am against foreign wars I am against oligarchy’s I believe in the right to life I think the states should decide things such as abortion and gay marriage. I believe that no one based on race or sexual orientation should be denied equal rights I believe in limited Government I believe in capitalism not the faux capitalism we see today. The marriage of government and big corp has a name, it’s called facism. I am pro union.when the workers are the actual beneficiaries I believe in sensible regulation to keep employers from taking advantage of workers. If the above puts me in the far right category I gladly accept the moniker. Vivid.vividbleau
February 12, 2023
February
02
Feb
12
12
2023
09:23 PM
9
09
23
PM
PDT
Isn't it all a matter of perspective? If VB, Breitbart and the Federalist view NPR to the far left of their position then from the NPR position they must be far right.Seversky
February 12, 2023
February
02
Feb
12
12
2023
08:18 PM
8
08
18
PM
PDT
CD 27 Use a form of poisoning the well much? Here is a novel thought rather than poisoning the well tell us what articles are inaccurate “Breitbart and the Federalist calling NPR a propaganda machine, is nothing but two kettles calling the pot black….” Hmm where did the Federalist and Fox say that ,in the links I posted , that they were a propaganda machine? Vividvividbleau
February 12, 2023
February
02
Feb
12
12
2023
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT
Well, they certainly aren’t as credible as Fox News.Ford Prefect
February 12, 2023
February
02
Feb
12
12
2023
05:22 PM
5
05
22
PM
PDT
Breitbart and the Federalist calling NPR a propaganda machine, is nothing but two kettles calling the pot black….chuckdarwin
February 12, 2023
February
02
Feb
12
12
2023
05:07 PM
5
05
07
PM
PDT
Vivid at 25, My mistake. Look here: https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asprelatd
February 12, 2023
February
02
Feb
12
12
2023
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT
Related 24 Thanks for the link unfortunately they violate their standards. NPR is a government funded far left propaganda machine. https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2022/09/16/medias-top-eight-hunter-biden-laptop-deniers-and-many-many-honorable-mentions/ NPR was number 7. Here is more. https://thefederalist.com/?s=NPR+ Vividvividbleau
February 12, 2023
February
02
Feb
12
12
2023
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT
Vivid at 19, https://www.npr.org/ethicsrelatd
February 12, 2023
February
02
Feb
12
12
2023
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT
Origenes at 20, Why do you believe as you do? https://nationalpress.org/awards/sol-taishoff-award-for-excellence-in-broadcast-journalism/relatd
February 12, 2023
February
02
Feb
12
12
2023
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT
Seversky at 17, Have you done ANY actual research? Any at all? Or are these musings from the latest episode of Life in Seversky-Land? You have zero historical knowledge. And another thing - "Disinformation" is a fake word. People lie. They were lying before the internet. And there are people who don't bother with the internet. So lies are spread on the internet. Fake ideas are spread on the internet. There are still worthwhile and credible sources of information but, for too many, the internet has taught them to be lazy. 'I'll read a 5 minute article on wikipedia.' Yeah, and then what? You're an expert now? You can have a reasonable conversation about whatever it is? Before the internet, people lied. Realize that. They haven't stopped lying or being prejudiced. "Exposing" lies on the internet automatically stops them? According to who? You? It's obvious that the lies and falsehoods have not been stopped by anyone. The majority do want the truth. But the majority don't know where to go or who to talk to to get it. So, some filter out the falsehoods and lies. They ignore large sections of the internet because what is there is false or useless. Some think "If I put up a website, people will flock to it." Not if it's full of junk. Here's where you go off the rails Seversky: "Not surprisingly, people prefer the certainties of those belief systems over the uncertainties that are offered as an alternative." Is that how you live? You actually want uncertainty? From your doctor, your bank and everywhere else? You're not making any sense. You don't want liberty. You want anarchy.relatd
February 12, 2023
February
02
Feb
12
12
2023
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT
Seversky, since you are always bashing Christianity's influence on society, this recent interview with historian Tom Holland may interest you.
What If Christianity Never Existed? - 'InspiringPhilosophy's' Interview with Tom Holland https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fg6juMk_d4A
Stephen Meyer also recently participated in an interview with Tom Holland
Does God Exist? A Conversation with Tom Holland, Stephen Meyer, and Douglas Murray - 2023 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2u54a1FL28
bornagain77
February 12, 2023
February
02
Feb
12
12
2023
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT
Related 18 "These standards have been achieved." By who?Origenes
February 12, 2023
February
02
Feb
12
12
2023
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT
Related 18 What standards? Vividvividbleau
February 12, 2023
February
02
Feb
12
12
2023
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT
Seversky at 14, News flash. There are standards. Standards in journalism. You don't know what you're talking about. These standards have been achieved. So quit you're anarchist whining.relatd
February 12, 2023
February
02
Feb
12
12
2023
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT
The argument for the allowing the greatest latitude in freedom of speech is that over time lies, hate speech, offensive speech and disinformation will be exposed and discredited for what they are and winnowed out of the public discourse. The weakness with that argument is that it assumes that the majority are concerned with discovering the truth as far as it is possible. If, on the other hand, there are large numbers who are convinced they are already in possession of all the truth there is to be had in their cozy "bubble chamber" so anything else must be false and can safely be ignored, then that disinformation filtration process will not work. We see that in both in the case of religions and political ideologies. Not surprisingly, people prefer the certainties of those belief systems over the uncertainties that are offered as an alternative. Verse: “if all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.” -- On Liberty (1859) JS MillSeversky
February 12, 2023
February
02
Feb
12
12
2023
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT
I find it funny that there is criticism of something no one has read. Wade’s theory has been discussed on UD before. C19 virus structure is one in 10^10000+ possibilities. So likely man made. Aside: Seversky is getting like other UD commentators with long comment when he believes he has something. Nature of his comments and others show it is political beliefs that drive content of comments. ID represents truth while anti ID represents emotional unjustified beliefs.jerry
February 12, 2023
February
02
Feb
12
12
2023
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT
Jerry/6
An essay by Nicholas Wade on the origins of the C19 virus. Don’t recommend purchasing because it costs $15.
Where COVID Came From NICHOLAS WADE Did the Covid virus jump naturally from an animal species to humans, or did it escape from a laboratory experiment? In this essay, science writer Nicholas Wade explores the two scenarios and argues that, on present evidence, lab escape is the more likely explanation
That may be Wade's view but what makes you think it is any more credible than, say, the following?
Why Confirming The Origin of COVID-19 Matters Published August 15, 2022 By Lindsay Smith Rogers A recent report in Science confirmed that a natural spillover emergence from a seafood wholesale market in Wuhan was the early epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic. On the August 12 episode of Public Health On Call, biosecurity and immunology expert Gigi Gronvall, PhD, a senior scholar at the Center for Health Security and the author of “The Contested Origin of SARS-CoV-2”, discussed the findings and their critical importance for finally putting many of the early theories to rest, as well as future implications for policy, biological research, and public health surveillance. WHY WAS THE ORIGIN OF SARS-COV-2 IN QUESTION? There has been a lot of evidence up to this point that the seafood market [in Wuhan] was the epicenter of SARS-CoV-2, but these recent reports are the death knell for any alternative theories. The reason why people thought that it wasn’t the market was because the Wuhan Virology Institute—a laboratory where scientists study coronaviruses—is in the same city. People thought that it came from [that] lab. But the evidence shows that the market was definitely the culprit, just as in 2003, when a live animal market led to the emergence of SARS—a smaller pandemic, but nonetheless very concerning. WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED AT THIS ANIMAL MARKET? Three-quarters of the early cases had some association with the market and none had an association with the laboratory. Even though the market and the laboratory are both in Wuhan, they are in different parts of the city separated by a river. There were also other indicators: There were two lineages—or two separate variants—of SARS-CoV-2 that were circulating in the early days of the pandemic. One of those became the pandemic [as we know it] and the other one died out. But [the existence of two lineages] would mean that there would have to have been two introductions from a laboratory, versus an outbreak going on among animals and then spilling over multiple times to people. The scientists looked for two things: tracking the early cases and evolution of the two lineages. They did a geospatial analysis which tracked cases that we knew about and pinpointed exactly where in Wuhan those cases were. They were even more tied to the market than previous indicators had suggested. The scientists looked at those two strains and [their] lineages to see how they evolved, which also tied it to an animal spillover. They got down to the exact stall of where one of the positive environmental samples had come from. There had been a picture taken a couple of months prior where a raccoon dog had been sitting in said stall. Raccoon dogs are one of the prime suspects for where the virus came from. WE KNOW THAT THE CORONAVIRUS ORIGINATED IN BATS. COULD THE RACCOON DOG HAVE BEEN THE INTERMEDIARY ANIMAL? Correct. We think it’s a bat virus that spilled over into an animal population. This is a very permissive virus, what they call a “generalist virus,” that’s able to infect lots of different animals. Raccoon dogs are one of the animals it’s known to infect. We don’t have [raccoon dogs] here in the U.S. They’re used for meat and fur [in China]. They were in poor condition, stuffed together in cages that were right next to each other—really not a good situation for limiting disease transmission and not taken care of as one would expect for a legal trade. A lot of the animals in the market were not supposed to be sold there, but there have been reports since the pandemic with pictures taken right before [of] illegal animals were being sold.
Seversky
February 12, 2023
February
02
Feb
12
12
2023
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus/3
Sev, there are other considerations also, duties to respect truth, innocent reputation [and wider duties to neighbour], honestly acquired property [including intellectual property], protection of especially minors from tainting or grooming opening up exploitation and abuse, responsible national security, and more. Striving for objectivity reflects duties to truth, right reason, warrant and wider prudence, also. KF
As you say, objective reporting entails the considerations you list above but, nonetheless we can hold it up as an ideal to be striven for even if it is almost impossible to achieve.Seversky
February 12, 2023
February
02
Feb
12
12
2023
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT
PM1 writes:
Aside: the “translation” gimmick is offensively passive-aggressive, and it’s always disingenuous
Then I suggest that you bring it up with the commenter who has frequently used it in this site.Ford Prefect
February 12, 2023
February
02
Feb
12
12
2023
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT
. As for the misinformation problem, a good test is to ask your evaluation of say Wikipedia’s article on ID vs that of New World Encyclopedia. For cause, the former is notorious.
Fair enough, but neither is free of bias. It should not be a surprise to anyone that an online encyclopedia originated by Sun Myung Moon will be friendlier to ID than a crowdsourced project that draws on a wide variety of perspectives.
A second, is, what is truth and what is objective truth, thence, what is knowledge. On that point, are there objective moral truths? Truths that are self evident, on pain of immediate absurdity on attempted denial?
I'm always game to discuss epistemology, but I doubt that solving the epistemological problems that have vexed philosophers for millennia (assuming we could!) would be either necessary or sufficient for addressing the problem of online misinformation.PyrrhoManiac1
February 12, 2023
February
02
Feb
12
12
2023
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT
Jerry, sadly, $15 is cheap these days. KFkairosfocus
February 12, 2023
February
02
Feb
12
12
2023
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT
FP & PM1, first, language, given the broken window theory. Coarse language simply invites lawless behaviour. Next, opinion has nothing to do with objectivity, which is a matter of warrant adequate to credibly hold that a given claim, perception, argument etc is not merely a matter of someone's error prone subjectivity (of which bias is a part). Loaded language, hostile tone, obvious fallacies of projection and personalisation, half truths and the like are fairly strong indications of a less than objective view. As for the misinformation problem, a good test is to ask your evaluation of say Wikipedia's article on ID vs that of New World Encyclopedia. For cause, the former is notorious. A second, is, what is truth and what is objective truth, thence, what is knowledge. On that point, are there objective moral truths? Truths that are self evident, on pain of immediate absurdity on attempted denial? And more. KFkairosfocus
February 12, 2023
February
02
Feb
12
12
2023
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT
Translation: anything I disagree with is useless but anything I agree with is credible.
I don't think that is at all fair. The problem of online misinformation is quite well-known. But no one has any idea about what to do about it, because any attempt to curb or control or filter the proliferation of lies, omissions, half-truths, bullshit, distortions, and outright propaganda would be countered with accusations of "censorship" or limitations of "free speech". That's not to say that freedom of speech and objective truth are necessarily opposed -- after all, the best argument in favor of freedom of speech is that unconstrained dialogue is conducive to discovering objective truth. But as long as there's money to be made in proliferating bullshit, omissions, and lies, then truth doesn't stand a chance. (Aside: the "translation" gimmick is offensively passive-aggressive, and it's always disingenuous.)PyrrhoManiac1
February 12, 2023
February
02
Feb
12
12
2023
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply