Yes, but is it hope or idealism? (sorry for be annoying early in the morning :))
look there will always be a minority that values objectivity but I do believe in general we function on emotion and the Algo's have figured that out (well we programmed them to do so) so the battle for convincing that majority of how good objectivism is has been lost. And like you say Objectivity just lost a very important battle.
I fear you are right. I tried to be optimistic for once (which is hard enough for a German). So now, I’ll just go back to my usual despair and listen to BBC World Service. 😜
I take issue with one point though: "its efforts to remain relevant, the BBC has increasingly pandered to a younger audience and emotionalised and sensationalised its news coverage. In effect, the BBC has tried to compete with Channel 4 and other private broadcasters".
First, C4 was set up by an Act of Parliament and is a publicly owned not-for-profit corporation (minor factual quibble). Second, and more importantly, C4 and others have a much higher standard of journalism than the BBC, and have done for some time. The Beeb has very much led the charge in declining journalistic standards. The question is why.
Finally (I was going to stop at 'second,' but the morning coffee's kicked in): facts, particularly facts about society, such as this pandemic, always exist in a social context. "Apolitical and objective" (certainly in terms of some mythical objectivity) is therefore neither possible nor, I would argue, desirable. Such 'objectivity' tends to play to the existing state of affairs, and therefore to dominating interests. Good journalism should always hold power to account - whoever that power may be - and will therefore always be political. What it should do is contain and reflect a plurality of views, which are themselves open to challenge and whose biases and interests are clear and, in any reasonable sense, have an objective grounding (so, therefore, no more presentations of climate scientists and climate change deniers as some kind of 'equal debate' - which is a prevalent form of really lazy journalism).
Sorry, but what Is your evidence that " a silent majority of the public is hungry for objective news and information"? Sounds like wishful thinking.
Hope dies last...
Yes, but is it hope or idealism? (sorry for be annoying early in the morning :))
look there will always be a minority that values objectivity but I do believe in general we function on emotion and the Algo's have figured that out (well we programmed them to do so) so the battle for convincing that majority of how good objectivism is has been lost. And like you say Objectivity just lost a very important battle.
Thanks for writing your blog Joachim!
I fear you are right. I tried to be optimistic for once (which is hard enough for a German). So now, I’ll just go back to my usual despair and listen to BBC World Service. 😜
Here is an OG uplifting German song for the morning: Ride Of The Valkyries ~ Wagner:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGU1P6lBW6Q&ab_channel=TheWickedNorth
Thanks Rabbi 🤪
Excellent if depressing piece.
I take issue with one point though: "its efforts to remain relevant, the BBC has increasingly pandered to a younger audience and emotionalised and sensationalised its news coverage. In effect, the BBC has tried to compete with Channel 4 and other private broadcasters".
First, C4 was set up by an Act of Parliament and is a publicly owned not-for-profit corporation (minor factual quibble). Second, and more importantly, C4 and others have a much higher standard of journalism than the BBC, and have done for some time. The Beeb has very much led the charge in declining journalistic standards. The question is why.
Finally (I was going to stop at 'second,' but the morning coffee's kicked in): facts, particularly facts about society, such as this pandemic, always exist in a social context. "Apolitical and objective" (certainly in terms of some mythical objectivity) is therefore neither possible nor, I would argue, desirable. Such 'objectivity' tends to play to the existing state of affairs, and therefore to dominating interests. Good journalism should always hold power to account - whoever that power may be - and will therefore always be political. What it should do is contain and reflect a plurality of views, which are themselves open to challenge and whose biases and interests are clear and, in any reasonable sense, have an objective grounding (so, therefore, no more presentations of climate scientists and climate change deniers as some kind of 'equal debate' - which is a prevalent form of really lazy journalism).
Thank you to tell us so much useful information. I’m glad to read it.