Who Worries About Objectivity In The Press?

It looks like two Connecticut newspapers might be out of business as soon as next week. The Bristol Press and The Herald have millions of dollars in debt and the slow economy is hurting them. They obviously do not have the circulation or ad revenue to sustain the business so they are headed for the recycle bin.

Or are they? A Connecticut lawmaker named Frank Nicastro wants to have the state bailout the newspapers. He believes they are vital to the community and that the people would be best served if the government used taxpayer money to keep them afloat.

He views it as his duty but there are others who think this is a dangerous move because it puts government in bed with the press. Some seem to think that the press is a watchdog over the government:

Relying on government help raises ethical questions for the press, whose traditional role has been to operate free from government influence as it tries to hold politicians accountable to the people who elected them. Even some publishers desperate for help are wary of this route.

Providing government support can muddy that mission, said Paul Janensch, a journalism professor at Quinnipiac University in Connecticut, and a former reporter and editor.

“You can’t expect a watchdog to bite the hand that feeds it,” he said. al-Reuters

I can understand where those with traditional views of government would have a problem with this whole idea much for the reasons stated. But one would have to be a complete lunatic to believe that the modern day press (all media for that matter) are objective and view it as their job to hold politicians accountable. None of them held Obama accountable.

The New York Times is a storied newspaper but it is only a watchdog over half of the government. If it is Republican they watch it and report anything (even national secrets) but if it is Democrat they ignore the story.

As a matter of fact, some in the media think it is their job to make Obama successful. These would be the same who worked tirelessly to harm the current president every chance they got.

There is nothing objective about most newspapers and none of the major ones are watchdogs over government.

When it comes to the press and Obama calling the newspapers guard dogs would be more appropriate.

Government does not belong using tax dollars to bail out ANY business including newspapers. That is the reason this should not happen.

If we actually had a press that acted like watch dogs over politicians then the arguments presented in the article would be valid but since they lost objectivity a long time ago there is no sense in pretending that this is an issue.

Big Dog

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

One Response to “Who Worries About Objectivity In The Press?”

  1. Being objective is not a simple task. When was the print media objective? With terms like yellow journalism and tabloid reporting emerging over time it may be more a case of from time to time media is objective and at other times not.

    What got my attention more in this post was another bailout proposal. As far as objectivity, I’m not sure who is or how often they meet the criteria.