The problem with modern journalism is not the lying, obfuscating, and denial of conflicting opinion, it’s the desire to reshape reality to fit a preconceived pattern. Recognition of this will allow for the possibility of recovery of credibility.

Everyone has biases. The only way to be completely objective is to either be disinterested (and therefore usually uninteresting) or to recognize that you have those biases and make a conscious decision not to let them control.

Boardman is at least partway to that point. It may not be all that much, but it is a start.

“I ask you all to leave your personal politics at the front door for one simple reason: A good newsroom is a sacred and magical place in which we can and should test every assumption, challenge each other’s thinking, ask the fundamental questions those in power hope we will overlook.”

He also said this:

“It’s not about “balance,” which is a false construct. It isn’t even about “objectivity,” which is a laudable but probably unattainable goal.”

Chris, those two statements are mutually contradictory. It is simply not possible to believe both of them. That is why I am not impressed by Boardman’s piece. When managing editors like Boardman eschew balance and objectivity, it is not hard to hear unmistakable echoes of modern journalism’s alarming tendency to declare certain debates “over” and that opposing points of view need not be considered.

By disparaging objectivity and balance, Boardman is in effect saying that partisan journalism is acceptable. Fine – they have a First Amendment right to be partisans. But it makes his statement about “test every assumption, challenge each other’s thinking, ask the fundamental questions those in power hope we will overlook” worthless. Why should I believe him when he says that?

That’s why I find Boardman’s concern about cheering in the newsrooms laughable. Given his reluctance to seek objectivity (or at least balance), what did he think was going to happen? And frankly modern journalism has far bigger worries than cheering journalists.

I also have to agree that “balance” is an artificial construct, if the meaning of balance is that we have to find some opposing viewpoint to every story. From the accepted viewpoint as presented, to the choice of the opposition viewpoint, all of these things are selected by the journalist. As we have seen in the past, no one is really being served by engaging in this rote behavior.

I agree with Gaius as well, I find his remarks about “objectivity” refreshing as well as realistic. I am not objective about most subjects, and neither are reporters. When they pretend to be, that’s when most of the trouble starts. If more journalists discarded the false notion of objectivity, which of course precludes bias, then they would at least be aware of how their own personalities shape the stories they present. That in itself would be an improvement.

Oh, there was a kind-of sort-of weak semi-admission on Boardman’s part of concern about the political makeup of newsrooms. But he contemptuously dismissed balance in news reporting as “a false construct” and objectivity as “unattainable”. Well now. In other words, even if he believed there to be a problem in his newsroom (which he clearly does not) he rejects the cure out of hand. Since when did balance and objectivity get such a bad rap from a managing editor?

Even more bizarre is this statement: “[I]f we allowed our news meetings to evolve into a liberal latte klatch, I have no doubt that a pathological case of group-think would soon set in.” Gee, Dave – do ya think so?

Earth to Boardman: Pathological liberal group-think is already here and is standard operating procedure in most news organizations. A quick perusal of some of the more infamous MSM deceptions over just the past few years is illuminating: the fake Bush Air National Guard memos, the fake Koran-flushing story, the fake war crimes “remembered” by Private Beauchamp, the fake “no WMDs in Iraq” meme, the fake “no Saddam-al Qaeda connections”, the fake “no al Qaeda in Iraq” line, the fake “domestic spying” scandal, the fake “Karl Rove outted Valerie Plame” scandal, the fake reports by “Jamil Hussein”, the fake Duke rape case (“The narrative was right, but the facts were wrong”), Reuter’s fauxtography, and the fake “global warming is settled scientific fact”. This is what passes for “sound fact-based journalism” these in most MSM outlets. And we have not even gotten to the countless stories where the MSM cherry-picked the facts to try to bring about the desired outcome.

Boardman’s irritation at “cheering in the newsroom” seems to be less concerned with journalistic ethics than with the possibility of the unwashed heathen rabble (that’s you and me, Bubba) getting wind of it and asking questions. Remember Walter Cronkite’s pompous declaration, “That’s the way it was,” which ended his CBS nightly news broadcasts? It was certainly not the way he said it was when he reported on the Tet offensive during the Vietnam War – and Walter knew it. Boardman and Cronkite have the right to report as they please – but they do not have the right to be taken seriously.

One final note: Boardman may not realize it, but he is a dinosaur. Left-wing partisanship in the media is getting worse. Those who cheered Karl Rove’s resignation in the newsrooms are growing in number, and will soon replace the likes of Boardman. If Boardman were truly interested in journalistic ethics, he would tackle this growing problem of partisanship-as-journalism. Instead of silencing the cheering, he might instead look for alternate points of view to be represented. But given his contempt for balance and objectivity I doubt that he will.