fix journalism a conversation about journalism’s future

Objectivity in journalism is not only a fallacy but a dangerous goal.

She basically said in order to be an objective journalist, you cannot have values. Therefore, because journalists publish themselves to other people, in order to remain perfectly objective, you cannot make moral judgments on what you observe and write about, otherwise you are inherently biased.

With this argument, an objective journalist is ammoral. Therefore, of the three purposes above, an ammoral journalist can only “inform the public.”

Basically The New York Times followed any standard, good ethical thought process: do no harm, by protecting their foreign source and photographer from violence by not posting a story or image online (international medium) that could have violent reprocussions outside of the United States. Instead the published it in print for the public good and to elicit help from their U.S. medium.

This is good ethical thinking.

But they forgot about the Internet.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/10/csm_dies_is_reborn.php
http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2008/10/29/business/media/29carr.html?permid=96#comment96
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/americas/2008/vote_usa_2008/7694856.stm
What do you think?

We’ve been bad bloggers so I apologize to three of you who read us. Annie, David Calvert and I, with the amazing help of Donica, are working non-stop to apply for the Knight Foundation’s News Challenge grant in an effort to save journalism in Reno.
Until the applications are filled out and sent and the deadline [...]