David Minute, Fraud, Donald Trump discussed on Scene On Radio

Scene On Radio
|

Automatic TRANSCRIPT

The problem of objectivity comes in already in the eighteen nineties. There was this idea that newspapers if they were going to be authoritative should be neutral and impartial on questions of race. But what that actually meant was that they were racist for example. The New York Times had an apologetic take on lynching it was bad. Yes but so. It was great what we saw in the eighteen eighties in eighteen nineties. Was that the white mainstream newspapers were using all the trappings of objectivity all the elements of objectivity to paint a picture of lynching. This is David Minute. A journalism professor at Temple. University mended says this chasm between the white story about lynching and the real story about lynching gets shielded by the notion of objectivity people weren't actually using that word yet but starting in the mid eighteen. Hundreds lots of white papers were trying to be nonpartisan and balanced however They were also using their racist baggage. Right they're also bringing their racist lands. They're racist goggles to the to Question of Lynching and there was no accuracy about The story in the eighteen eighties nineties. He's has white writers at the time. Just couldn't imagine black men as innocent or imagine that white women might have consensual relationships with them so there are a whole bunch of racist elements that were getting in the way of telling a truthful story racist elements getting in the way of telling the truth that felt so familiar to me from watching everything unfold with Donald Trump obviously but also even from before that in twenty fourteen I had covered the rise of the black lives matter movement and saw how much young black people had to do to prove quote. Their side of the story like thousands of black people could testify that the cops were racist or cops. Were violent all that could be balanced by one statement from a police chief and I remember participating in doing these supposedly balanced news reports so okay objective journalism at least when it pretends to be neutral can reinforce racist ideas and maybe always has but that still doesn't answer my question of why we even had objective journalism in the first place. You David Mendez Book. Just the facts explains that in IDA B Wells Time. The whole idea of balance and journalism was still pretty new and changing fast. Journalists were among the most partisan people in America in the eighteen twenties early eighteen thirty s for a lot of the eighteen hundreds a journalist slash activist or an editor slash political candidate was relatively normal. There were people who were who were newspaper editors but there were also planning riots and they were also encouraging election violence. Election fraud and many newspapers were straight up funded by political parties but from the eighteen thirties. On boatloads of immigrants were coming to the. Us Literacy was on the rise and the newspaper industry responded by creating a new kind of urban publication. Penny paper not funded by political parties but by sales and advertising and to do so they had to shed their partisan baggage and try to sell as many papers as possible and sell advertisements and to do so they had to become politically independent And rely on trying to reach a broad audience rather than just one political party or another so he says what we now call objectivity developed partly because of this new business model journalists. Were trying to be more detached. Nonpartisan balanced and also more factual which reflected cultural shifts to.

Coming up next