by threadbear » Sat 01 Dec 2007, 22:43:28
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Bas', 'j')ournalism isn't about attacking or defending, it's about reporting. You do have columns in papers that might be more offensive on American policy but in general journalists should and do refrain from judgement. Ofcourse in some backward countries objective reporting and opinion are more and more the same.
To subtract meaning and context from "the facts" isn't actually objective. It can just as easily be used to subvert understanding as the most screeching sloganeering. Fox news can be appreciated because it it clearly propaganda. BBC, CBC, and all of the mainstream American networks, because they are beholden to govt. or corporations, put up an appearance of objectivity, but they clearly aren't.
There is a strong role for advocacy journalism. The best we can do are sites like Counterpunch, which is funded by foundations that are pro corporate, so they also, only ever go so far. A litmus test for how objective any news source is is the question of the murder of JFK. Alexander Cockburn goes ballistic on this issue. He's a lone gunman supporter and you will NEVER read anything about either Kennedy conspiracy or 911 on his site, though he regularly rips Israel through the shredder sideways.
Both the msm and alternative media are controlled by elite forces, so they will only go so far.
Online journal is an exception as are other online sites. DailyKos is run by a guy who attended CIA training school. How far does he go on 911? Is it subject to debate on his site, or simply verboten? "What really happened" is a really helpful site.
Asiatimesonline is sophisticated, intellectual--very helpful economic insight scrubbed free of American free market triumphalism. It also was one of the first to report Peak Oil.
Scotsman--pretty good. The Guardian-not bad.