User talk:Taylorbruce23/sandbox

With objectivity being something that can be extremely difficult to achieve due to its guidelines, comes many critics. Some believe that objectivity becomes meaningless because it is impossible from journalists to achieve truthfulness, fairness, and detachment to the fullest extent because it rests on the observation that 'journalists are human beings"-- meaning that they have a gender, ethnicity, family, a social background, personal history, this all meaning that when a journalist believes they can put all of these factors aside they fail to see how their own conscious and unconscious motivations are affecting how they report. It is also critiqued because as journalism has expanded any basically any one can be a self-proclaimed journalist, not all of the same rules are in place for those who are professionals or those who have a small blog. To further that, journalistic writing is seen as a discipline rather than just a personal platform for ideas and opinions.The lines begin to become blurred, but they can only be meaningful when they support the wider project of objectivity: which is an open-ended pursuit of truth. If, on the other hand, the norms of professional journalistic practice become hardened into a strict set of rules, then journalism is just a discipline reduced to meaningless habitsTaylorbruce23 (talk) 02:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

the rise and fall of objectivity

The rise of objectivity has many layers of how it came to be, and it was most prominent throughout history when reporting on wars were at the forefront of journalism. The establishment of objectivity as a clear professional ethic of journalism after the First World War went hand in hand with a joint and conscious effort to ‘manage’ a dangerous public opinion. And during these times news platforms like the BBC were presented with the opportunity of “impartiality” The explicit promotion of journalistic objectivity was an attempt to cope with this situation by finding ways to retain credibility with the mass audience. It was also a tool for managing public opinion: the rise of public relations in the inter-war period indicated the elite’s pressing concern with handling an unruly and unpredictable mass public by ‘engineering’ or ‘manufacturing’ consent as stated by Edward Bernays and Walter Lippmann the fall of objectivity The traditional professional routines of journalism were potentially more than mere ‘rituals’: practices such as fact-checking or seeking out both sides of a story offered ways to overcome the limitations of one’s own subjective impressions and to get at the truth. Today, there is less sense of a necessity to transcend the personal and impressionistic. It is often suggested that traditional forms of journalism have been undermined by the wide availability of access to journalism, as masses of amateurs with camera phones and laptops present a variety of perspectives directly to the public that the formerly authoritative discourse of the professional reporter is reduced to merely one voice among many. But it could just as plausibly be argued that – at least potentially – new technologies could help to overcome many of the obstacles to objective journalism.Taylorbruce23 (talk) 02:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)