Skip to main content

The Batavian is an open forum

By Howard B. Owens

Sometime ago I came to conclusion that newspaper journalism as practiced from about the 1950s on is dishonest.

Journalists beat their chests about objectivity. They report only the facts, they tell us. They have no opinions, no prejudices, no biases.

But the truth is, there's never been an objective newspaper story printed in the history of mankind.

Strict objectivity is impossible.

When a reporter goes to a City Council meeting, he starts making decisions about what agenda items are important, which facts and quotes will get jotted in a notebook and who to interview and what questions to ask once the meeting is over. When the reporter gets back to the office, he starts making decisions about which facts are the most important and which quotes to use and how to weave them into his story.

These are all subjective decisions based on a reporter's experience, prejudices and predilections. 

Some reporters are quite artful in pursuing an agenda by what they report and how they report it, but when called on it, they can just point to the story and say, "I don't express any opinion in this story."

A news story can be 100 percent factual, and laden with opinion, designed to lead the reader to the conclusion a reporter wishes to promote.

The general audience, however, believes reporters should be objective. That's what they were taught by the media.  People often sense the media they're getting isn't objective and become dissatisfied with the coverage they get, but because they haven't thought about how impossible objectivity is, they continue to demand objectivity as the standard.

Rupert Murdoch, the ever insightful media observer, noticed the breadth of this objectivity gap (audiences demand objectivity but only recognize as objective that which conforms with their views) and created Fox News.

He called his news "Fair and Balanced" and conservatives ate it up.  "Finally," they said, "objective news."

But Fox is anything but objective. It's opinionated. It pushes a conservative agenda. On Fox, Republicans can do no wrong and Democrats can do no right.

Every Democrat activist hates Fox News, and the "Fair and Balanced" motto drives them up the wall, but they love MSNBC, which overtly shifted its coverage to appeal to progressives in order to compete with Fox.

So when we launched The Batavian, we decided we would do away with all that phony-baloney "objectivity."

Our goals are simple: Be truthful, be honest, be transparent, provide all the relevant facts, to the best of our ability and hope our own blind stops don't lead us down the wrong coverage path.

That means, if we have an opinion, we'll be honest about sharing it. That's what honest and transparent journalists do in this New Media world.

And in the New Media world, because anybody can publish, there is a free and instantaneous check against our mistakes, biases and wrongheadedness, or just an open forum for others to disagree.

All opinions and observations are welcome on The Batavian.

There was a time when Republicans thought The Batavian was hostile to their positions. Many of the original members of the site were active in local Democratic politics, and I think Philip Anselmo leaned a bit to the liberal side. 

While I espoused a localist-libertarian position, I was (and am) non-partisan.

In this environment, Republicans didn't see many of their ideas being put forward and thought their viewpoints would be unwelcome.

Now, I'm hearing the Democrats are thinking of The Batavian, especially since Philip left is hostile to their party and positions.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Naturally, I'm going to be critical of big government programs being pushed by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand or more taxes and spending from David Paterson, but that's because as  a libertarian, I think those are bad policies. It has nothing to do with party affiliation.  I'm critical of Republicans when they espouse more government solutions to problems.

But really, what I believe and write is really immaterial. Mine is just one voice.

The Batavian is an open forum.  Anybody can leave a comment or submit a blog post.  If you don't like what I or anybody else has to say, you can have your say, too.  Of course, be prepared to defend your position in a mature and thoughtful way. There are many smart people who contribute to The Batavian and they won't always agree with you.

We believe that in an environment of open discussion, we can get much closer to the truth than in an environment where only single voices, or singular viewpoints are heard.

The only people who have ever been banned from The Batavian were people who engaged in personal attacks or trolling or not using their real names. Nobody has ever been banned because they were a Republican or Democrat or disagreed with me or another member of the site.

This isn't Daily Kos or Free Republic where you will get shouted down and shunned if you disagree with the prevailing agenda.

So if there are there any Democrats out there, or Republicans, who feel like their viewpoint isn't represented on The Batavian, they have nobody to blame but themselves.

UPDATE: See my comment attached to this post noting a back channel communication suggesting I'm off base and pointing out a few locally involved Democrats who participate that I didn't realize were active in the local party.

UPDATE Monday, 9:45 a.m.I: I've been struggling a good deal since yesterday afternoon about how I feel about this post.  I'm very grateful to all the people who are friends and fans of The Batavian. Some of them happen to be very involved in partisan politics, many of them are Democrats. I never really sat down and counted up how many that might be.  None of them said one mean or angry thing to me about this post, but as soon as I realized that I had overreacted to what just a couple of people said (and particularly an e-mail correspondent who doesn't even live in Genesee County), I felt and feel bad.  And not because of anything related to people being Democrats or Republicans, but because the people I least considered should have been among the first I considered because they've been so loyal to The Batavian.  I went in the wrong direction with this post, and for that I apologize.  (And maybe I'm just being too sensative about my own mistake -- some good conversation has come out of this post. I'm not sure anybody was really offended. But I feel like some people would have a right to be offended).

James Pinson

Howard -

I believe the Batavian to be a wonderful forum for discussing local issues of all types. I have been surprised to discover that many of my friends . . . 20 somethings all . . . are frequent readers of the Batavian. I would add that in addition to intelligent readers/posters from both sides of the political spectrum, there are also intelligent readers/posters from all age ranges. Keep up the good work, Howard! It is being appreciated.

Aug 30, 2009, 1:40pm Permalink
Gabor Deutsch

I really enjoy The Batavian for many reasons. I dont associate this website with any political label. I like the wide range of topics and other peoples point of view. I like the idea that I can post what I think too.

Aug 30, 2009, 2:18pm Permalink
Kristy Frey

I just joined and I've only read a few of the articles here. I look forward to reading more.

What happened in the 1950s that made things change?

Aug 30, 2009, 3:01pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Kristy, it really started in the 1920s, about the time Joseph Pulitzer endowed the first college of journalism (Columbia, in NYC) and Walter Lippmann published "Liberty and the News." That was the first time that the word "objectivity" was attached to news coverage.

It took some time for that "professionalization" of the craft to creep into all newsrooms.

Look at the coverage of World War II. Hardly objective (and maybe thankfully so).

But after the war, hiring college educated journalists (the GI Bill might have had something to do with it) became more in vogue.

J-schools taught "objectivity" as the standard.

But interestingly, they did not teach objectivity as Walter Lippmann espoused (I've reviewed college text books from the era). They taught what I call "strict objectivity" -- the idea that you could report just the facts without bias or slant. It's my position that such "strict objectivity" is an impossible standard.

What Lippmann espoused was scientific objectivity. What do scientists do? They gather facts and data and arrived at non-prejudged conclusions. They are not free of opinion, but full of opinion. The great examples of professional, objective journalists Lippmann cited in his book were all men and women who had a point of view and shared opinions.

Newspaper readership has been in steady decline since about 1960. There are many factors, but it's interesting to me that this decline coincides with the growing influence of strict objectivity in newsrooms and a growing disengagement for local communities by local newspapers.

Aug 30, 2009, 3:16pm Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Howard, I rarely have an issue with the stories you choose to print. I also fully understand that all your stories are slanted towards your point of view.

It’s also safe to say that most of the regular posters on this site have a political agenda. I am also pretty sure that their agenda is not a Republican one either. Since, none of the Republican leaders I know would ever align themselves with most of the regular posters on this site.

I would describe the viewpoints I read here as anti-society, anti-government, paranoid and prone to conspiracy theories. Then there is the rest who would do or say anything to get a stir out of people.

Aug 30, 2009, 4:36pm Permalink
Jeff Allen

Charlie says "I am also pretty sure that their agenda is not a Republican one either. Since, none of the Republican leaders I know would ever align themselves with most of the regular posters on this site." As a Republican (for now) I would not wish to be aligned with much of the Republican leadership at the Albany or Washington level either.

Aug 30, 2009, 4:52pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

I got a back channel e-mail suggesting I'm off base. That many local Democrats participate. Obviously, Charlie's a Democrat, and later I remembered Tim Paine is on the local committee, but there are a couple of people whom I knew were Democrat leaning who comment, but I didn't realize they were also committee members.

When you add up the three our four people who are active locally that I didn't know about, and the couple I wasn't thinking about, there are in fact far more active local Democrats who leave comments than committee member Republicans.

But I still want to emphasize the point -- because once in a while I think it's good to remind people of this -- The Batavian isn't aligned with any political party and we don't want the perception that only one set of view points is welcome.

And this isn't intended to be your Grandfather's Journalism.

I've said much the same thing as above when writing about Republicans who say they don't want to get involved with The Batavian because it's a "Democratic site."

Aug 30, 2009, 5:09pm Permalink
Marty Stucko

Another reason to the decline of traditional print media besides the competition from free internet sources are: people are both over news’d in the things that don’t matter and misled on the things that do matter. There was a time when I could not start a day without the morning newspaper. Marshall Mcluhan, the patron saint of the internet said that: "we immerse our selves in the news like we immerse ourselves into a bath”.

Global news is now a fetid, toxic, cesspool, filled daily with the sensational: kidnappings, celebrity short comings, financial scandal, political corruption, the democrats verses the republican feud and the fourth quarter play by play end of the American middle class. For what purpose would anyone want to start a day with a wade into this?

My morning bath starts with The Batavian. As we try as a real community to dig ourselves out of the problems and excesses created by a now dysfunctional two party system, we will have to rely on ourselves and alternatives to the status quo. The Batavian, is a great forum to start hammering out the shape of things to come.

Aug 30, 2009, 5:23pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Note, I feel a bit chagrined to have overreacted to one comment and one e-mail discussion.

There are many points in this post I do like to remind people of once in a while, but I probably used the wrong jumping off point.

There are clearly is no problem with Democrats participating in the site and I was reacting to the wrong thing.

I'm leaving the post on the site, as the honest thing to do, but taking it off the home page so as not to emphasize the point.

Aug 30, 2009, 5:24pm Permalink
Bea McManis

Posted by Charlie Mallow on August 30, 2009 - 4:36pm
I would describe the viewpoints I read here as anti-society, anti-government, paranoid and prone to conspiracy theories. Then there is the rest who would do or say anything to get a stir out of people.

Yes, there are viewpoints that are everything you describe, but not everyone is anti-society, anti-government, paranoid or prone to conspiracy theories.

The snerts who will say anything to get a stir out of people are legion on internet sites. They are part and parcel of the online community.

Aug 30, 2009, 6:40pm Permalink
Dennis Jay

>> "...newspaper journalism as practiced from about the 1950s on is dishonest."

Howard - To say all journalism is dishonest is a bit of a stretch. There is good journalism. There is bad journalism. There is no perfect journalism. At least as long as humans are producing it. There's still a lot of great journalism being practiced; it's just getting harder to find.

New media is a nice addition to main-stream media, but it likely will never replace it. I have about 50 blogs on my RSS feeder and frankly even the best ones are mostly noise.

There are nuggets of insight and refreshing ideas, but little in the way of solid reporting. A democracy doesn't thrive just by citizenry expressing their opinions, but on solid investigative reporting that helps keep the powerful in check.

The most smart, reasoned and thoughtful people I know get their news from many different sources, and don't shy away from reading articles that may not agree with their point of view.

Aug 30, 2009, 7:05pm Permalink
Bea McManis

Posted by Jeff Allen on August 30, 2009 - 4:52pm
As a Republican (for now).

Jeff,
We have to have coffee and I'll bring along a voter registration card for you to sign, lol.

Aug 30, 2009, 7:20pm Permalink

Authentically Local