Ann B Loc: Northeast Indiana

Amen and amen!
I too worked for a small newspaper (not in the news dept. though) & they might report the news items that were not favorable to them, but they are buried in the middle of the paper with very little said. I will give the production mgr. credit though, he would make an editor change a headline if it sounded like an opinion rather than a fact. (And he's still there :) )

RMM Loc: Suburban New York

It might be possible to be objective about a fire or a murder or social event. But politics, economics, religion all have value connotations. If you believe in free market capitalist democracy, then you will have a bias reporting about events in a socialist country because what you regard as right and natural and effective warp your perspective. On the other hand, if you believe that everyone is entitled to basic education, health and income, and that what you inherit in your genes is more important than what you inherited in your bank account, you will value and evaluate things differently because unregulated activity ultimately leads to distorted economies and dangerous concentrations of power. It's going to show up in your reporting, and we haven't even gotten to the editor yet.

Once upon a time, the TV news divisions were independent. Then they were transferred to the entertainment divisions. The results are predictably horrific.

docrob Loc: Durango, Colorado

Hi Roger, am surprised you asked this question: Given that there is not and never has been any point of pure objectivity by anyone anywhere I'd have to say no - not within the rhelm of human perception.

drobbia Loc: Near Middletown, CA

Take a photo of a tree. Duplicate it. Putz around in Photoshop changing density, sharpness, contrast, noise, definition. etc. The image will change drastically. It may become unrecognizable. It's still had the begining image of a tree, KINDA'.
Like the news. Change the event, spin it, revise it, and call it a tree. It is ,Kinda'
On most issues, esp. those political, the news is purely the result of someones or some groups' agenda.
Stay informed by reading, watching, listening to as many sides of a issue that interests you. Make a decision. Keep an open mind. You may be mistaken but you will not be wrong.

xpane

No, but you can get unbiased opinion from Chris Mathews.

Kenneth Pierce Loc: Campbellsville, Kentucky

Hey folks, take all of the comments you have read to this post.....get ready......Apply them to our favorite topic--photography! just saying!

jerryg Loc: NE Pa

I believe you are incorrect about this. Yes of course there are personal agendas but a good reprter learns to put this aside and report with all intentions of being honest and accurate. It takes reading and proofing what you've written and then it must pass by your editor and if he is s good editor he'll pick it up and let you know.

Ann B Loc: Northeast Indiana

I was thinking that too -- we're all a little biased in our opinons no matter what the topic, reporters or photography!

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

None. As mentioned personal bias will show through.
However, reporting has gone way beyond just someone trying to be objective and their bias showing. It seems (to me at least) that there are little if any attempts at objectivity. That all reports are deliberately Slanted.

edg.photos Loc: Charlotte NC

Nobody is or can be totally objective -- true of the speaker and the hearer.
Financial reporters have to disclose if they own stocks that they report on -- to tell if they have a stake in it. Why do we want reporters to pretend (and as listeners, why do we want to pretend) that they are unbiased? Wouldn't it be better to disclose the bias?

BuckeyeBilly Loc: St. Petersburg, FL

OK, I'll throw in my 2-cents worth. We USED to get good reporting from the likes of Walter Cronkite, Huntley & Brinkley, and some others......BUT the landscape changed with the Nixon scandal and it's gone south, WAY south, since that time. In our day, everybody wants to be first at something, or get noticed at something, and the way to do that is to offer some opinion mixed in with the facts that actually clouds the reality of whatever is being reported on. Honestly, all of the networks are fair and objective when it comes to reporting on disasters or sporting events or, really, anything that just simply happens...EXCEPT in the political arena. Here is where the road suddenly goes off in all kinds of directions and we're faced with choosing which way to go. After watching the news or reading it for a few times, we then tend to keep watching or reading the same venues where our personal choices and convictions lie. I am a conservative and do watch FOX News regularly but even there, I do not always like or agree with what I see. To counterbalance this, I will switch to CNN or MSNBC to hear how similar in views they all are....or how different, which is usually the case. As for this political arena, to me, the most objective place to get the facts as they happen or are said IN ITS ENTIRETY (as opposed to the 30-second subjective soundbite the networks want us to see) is to watch C-SPAN. There I can see what our political gasbags are saying in its complete context, which is the only way to really base an opinion on. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it!

Jer Loc: Mesa, Arizona

As a former journalist, journalist teachers, and now a freelancer I agree with most of your views. I was taught "old-school" when I got my journalism degree. First, you are only as good as your source and normally you just have a few minutes to get a story. If you take a picture of an event, does it convey the full meaning of the event. How many people constitute a news story. If three of my friends and myself picket city hall, should it be reported. That could convey that it was more important than four poker buddies doing something crazy. Do you do a story that might offend a major advertiser? In small markets, it be the difference between a profitable publication or bankruptcy. How many times should you report an event. What is the right of the public know? This list goes on forever and no matter what you write or how careful you are... someone will complain you have a bias.

That's why you have to read or listen to media from the right to left and see if you can get a better idea of what the issue is.

BuckeyeBilly Loc: St. Petersburg, FL

xpane,

Chris Matthews? Objective? Are you kidding me? He's had more opinions debunked than any reporter I know of! But then look at who his employer is....MSNBC, the most UN-watched, liberal-liberal cable network in the history of news reporting. They are a joke and so is Matthews. Do yourself a favor and at least upgrade to the second highest-rated network, CNN. Find someone on there who will also have a liberal opinion but can at least make a decent enough case for their opinion.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

Hmmmmm. Well at least we know that Rush and Sean, and Bill are totally objective and unbiased and have never had to apologize for telling an untruth.

blacks2 Loc: SF. Bay area

Funny, just yesterday I was reading in an Austrian newspaper, that is totally unbiased, how Fox News is twisting the truth in their newscasts..