CSCasper30 karma2021-03-23 13:10:13 UTC
There is a strong perception these days that a large amount of journalism is to advance activism. In any direction, doesn't matter if it's MSNBC or Fox. That objective coverage is becoming less common and it is harder to trust journalists because of it.
Do you see journalism merging with political activism as a good thing, and the loss of either the perception of objectiveness or objectiveness itself to be an acceptable casualty if it means advancing one's political beliefs? Do you think the public is right or wrong to lose faith in journalism as a whole as this trend continues? You seem well placed for insights, as it appears you have an activist background and are providing content to news outlets.
I don't want to come off as attacking you. I'm a pretty middle of the road person, but it often seems the only decent middle of the road news service I can generally trust is Reuters. It is solely because they have a good track record and their coverage seems to be even handed. I have no way of knowing if any individuals in the news chain is influencing the content.
View HistoryShare Link
CSCasper13 karma2020-10-26 18:26:10 UTC
Kinda sorta. Dems lean younger and less likely to vote. Repubs lean older and more likely to vote. If you have an audience that is very likely to vote (old people very much do), why waste the money on advertising a reminder to vote if your opposition is already doign so?
I have heard of Republican groups that worked with senior communities or homes for arranging transportation. They also don't generally discriminate on party either. They play the odds game as equally as the DNC does with get out the vote campaigns. Both have apparently run the numbers and decided where to spend the money and time. Not bussing in seniors doesn't mean the DNC hates old people, it's just not as cost effective.
CSCasper9 karma2021-03-23 15:30:28 UTC
I'm familiar with yellow journalism and its role in say, starting the Spanish-American War. Pulitzer and Hearst are the two big names of that era. It is mildly amusing that the Pulitzer Prize is indeed named after a publisher largely known for driving a war on speculation and often false information.
I am well aware that very few organizations wish to publish neutral information without some kind of slant. That's to me an issue, but I wanted to bring up at least the question of whether that was a good or bad thing.
Just because I'm aware that journalism has had particularly bad periods of history in the United States, doesn't negate my questions of "how much activism should be in journalism", "is objectivity desirable in journalism" and "what can we do about any of that?"
CSCasper4 karma2020-10-26 18:51:23 UTC
As an American, I'd like that info as well if you find it.
CSCasper-1 karma2020-10-26 18:34:44 UTC
This is strictly curiousity... But do you have any internal review process?
I don't think you're wrong for doing so. But with no information on potential sources of bias, it'd be trivial to say have a HR staffer do some quick googling of voter registration lists to weed out a higher percentage of one political party. Transparent internal reviews would help mitigate this risk.
Copyright © 2014 BestofAMA.com, All rights reserved.
reddit has not approved or endorsed BestofAMA, reddit design elements are trademarks of reddit inc.