SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home The Ideology Of Journalistic Standards

JONATHAN CHAIT JULY 23, 2010

The Ideology Of Journalistic Standards

BY JONATHAN CHAIT

The concept of a press corps that strives for objectivity and hews to rigorous standards of conduct is a product of the Progressive Era. Unsurprisingly, especially in an era when large segments of the conservative movement have come to regard the Progressive Era as the root of all evil, not everybody agrees with this ideal. This is one of the dynamics that's emerged from the latest Breitbart scandal. You have figures like Rush Limbaugh rallying around Breitbart. Or James Taranto arguing that the real villain here is the NAACP:

Are we to believe that Ben Jealous thought Breitbart was what Dan Rather, before his fall, claimed to be--an impartial and reliable purveyor of facts? In the unlikely event that the answer to that question is yes, doesn't his failure to know better reflect a stunning incompetence?

(David Frum wittily summarizes Taranto's argument: As Otter says in Animal House: “You fucked up. You trusted us.”)

A couple days ago, National Review's Kevin Williamson argued that Breitbart has higher standards than the mainstream media, because Breitbart expressed regret and Dan Rather didn't. I noted that Breitbart did not apologize at all, and Dan Rather and his producer lost their jobs. Williamson replies by changing the subject to my description of Breitbart having committed a "malicious error," which he disputes. I think it's a fair description given Breitbart's history of such errors, but it's beside the point.

The point is that news organizations that hew to accepted journalism standards may make mistakes, but they apologize for those mistakes and take steps to ensure that they don't recur. Breitbart has done no such thing. And why should he? With so many conservatives rallying around him, he has no reason to change his ways.

None of this is to say that conservatives can't hold themselves to high journalistic standards. Many of them do. But it shouldn't come as any surprise that many members of a movement that despises the ethos of progressivism -- elites using rigorous methods to determine some objective reality in order to advance the public good -- also despise its application to journalism.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 8 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

8 comments

We're amazed anyone even considers Fox, Brietbart, Druge et al., sources of news that rival paper and network staff. We see them as entertaining cartoons for infantile hyperbole junkies. Fox and Drudge are great craic but I watch them while the better half watches Idol. The quality of American journalism in general is shocking, with notable exceptions. Evidence number one is Kristol's Churchill "article" in the Weekly today. My god. They actually get paid well for this stuff.

- IggyPop

July 23, 2010 at 2:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If journalists go into journalism for the money, and they realize lying pays better than the truthing, they will start lying, just like other business people. Tucker Carlson doesn't pursue the truth, he's a cynical businessman who wants to get (remain) rich, same went for Tim Russert, and lots and lots and lots of others.

- mmathog

July 23, 2010 at 2:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I confess that I don't what "objectivity" would look like. Now, before anyone sets on me for being far gone in postmodernism, let me hasten to add that I favor triangulation, or rather multiangulaiton when it comes to any story or controversy, that I am for slathering together as many facts as possible, and for narratives that skew toward a rich and rounded rendering of a story. So, even though I have grave philosophical objections to the concept of objectivity, there probably isn't much difference between the kind of journalism I would like to see and the sort of journalism those who talk about "objectivity" would champion.

- liberal reformer

July 23, 2010 at 4:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Fox et al. are not great craic for me, ig. And your SO watches Idol? My wife and I would not enjoy kibitzing with you two.

- liberal reformer

July 23, 2010 at 4:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

>elites using rigorous methods to determine some objective reality in order to advance the public good When did the ethos of progressivism start to involve elites?

- egottlieb

July 23, 2010 at 6:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The word "know" should have appeared between "don't" and "what" in the first sentence of my first post.

- liberal reformer

July 23, 2010 at 9:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Happened to catch the rebroadcast of the o'reilly factor this morning when insomnia took me. ALREADY, the focus of the show was on how liberals have a double standard when it comes to race (they're unfair to whites) and how the Sherrod case proves it. As well, Ms. Sherrod has somehow become a villain again because she did too many interviews in the aftermath of her firing and vindication.

- miceelf

July 24, 2010 at 8:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

one the blogs I read religiously has her two copper about it. Not work safe (for language): http://angryblackbitch.blogspot.com/2010/07/take-sniffnote-flies.html http://angryblackbitch.blogspot.com/2010/07/serious-questions-remain.html

- miceelf

July 26, 2010 at 6:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close