by Pseudo-objectivity about pseudo-objectivity Jay Rosen coined the phrase “the view from nowhere” to describe the default stance of political journalism in the US and elsewhere, often defended as “objectivity”. This is closely linked to the concept of the Overton window, which I wrote about recently in relation to the AUKUS nuclear subs deal In essence, the “view from nowhere” amounts to treating all positions within the Overton window as equally valid, and providing neutral reportage about them. This may consist of repeating the arguments of their proponents, along the lines “the earth is spherical as can be seen from space” vs “who are you going to believe: a bunch of NASA scientists, or your own common sense, which tells you that it’s flat”. The second mode is “horse-race”
Topics:
John Quiggin considers the following as important: Uncategorized
This could be interesting, too:
Merijn T. Knibbe writes Argentina bucks the trend. Vitamin A deficiencies are increasing
John Quiggin writes Armistice Day
Editor writes Making America Great Again, 2024
Merijn T. Knibbe writes Völkermord in Gaza. Two million deaths are in the cards.
Pseudo-objectivity about pseudo-objectivity
Jay Rosen coined the phrase “the view from nowhere” to describe the default stance of political journalism in the US and elsewhere, often defended as “objectivity”. This is closely linked to the concept of the Overton window, which I wrote about recently in relation to the AUKUS nuclear subs deal
In essence, the “view from nowhere” amounts to treating all positions within the Overton window as equally valid, and providing neutral reportage about them. This may consist of repeating the arguments of their proponents, along the lines “the earth is spherical as can be seen from space” vs “who are you going to believe: a bunch of NASA scientists, or your own common sense, which tells you that it’s flat”. The second mode is “horse-race” commentary on the relative chances of the Flat-earth and Round-earth parties in political contests”. Views from outside the Overton window, such as “oblate spheroid” are simply ignored.
Now we have, in the Washington Post, an objective article about objectivity, by former editor Martin Baron. Baron spends a bit over 3000 words canvassing a wide range of views about objectivity. In the end, he decides it’s a good thing, but never brings himself to actually say what it is supposed to be.
Baron walks up to the edge of the question when he says
“many journalists have concluded that our profession has failed miserably to fulfill its responsibilities at a perilous moment in history. Their evidence is that Donald Trump got elected in the first place, despite his lies, nativism, brutishness and racist and misogynistic language;”
but never confronts the crucial fact that neither the Washington Post nor any other major newspaper ever ran a news story saying “Trump lies” or “Trump is a racist and misogynist” (even now he can’t quite bring himself to actually say the second, just that Trump used “racist and misogynistic language”).
So, was the refusal to state the truth about Trump in plain words a failure of journalistic objectivity or a perfect example of it?
At the end of this long, long article, we are none the wiser. But, at least every viewpoint within the Overton window {1} has been given an airing.
fn1. though not, for example, the view that this is what you would expect from capitalist media companies