This article begins with the topic of transparency in a way. Discussed by Brian Carroll, transparency is a modern journalism technique used to relate journalist to consumer. The opening of this article includes an excerpt by a Greek writer, which is ironic considering an ancient writer hinted toward a modern journalism concept. While I am reading the article it also strikes me how much emphasis the writer puts on accuracy, which follows along with Carroll’s point that our modern age has reduced the gravity of this once glorified journalism goal.
The “verification” core of journalism is much like the “credibility” discussed by Carroll. I’ve never heard journalism described as a science before but I like the sound of it. After all, this verification can boil down to the collection of evidence, as paralleled in the sciences.
The idea of objectivity being “lost” seems silly to me. It’s not as if reporters can’t figure out what that means. Sure, objectivity as it was originally developed might not be taught in schools anymore, but does that mean it’s handed down “by word of mouth”? The concept of objectivity being a part of the institution, not the reporter is surely not that difficult for an individual reporter to come up with on their own.
I think that this article romanticizes classic journalism techniques; he makes modern technology-based journalism sound like a layman’s hobby and classic journalism sound like a Sherlock Holmes tale. That may be a bit of an exaggeration, but he does make classic journalism sound much more respectable.
Is it possible for a journalist to be completely unbiased? With a journalist, who, behind the typed name is a person with a family and a childhood and their own set of beliefs, perform an investigation that doesn’t rely on these pre-determined perspectives?