I don't have much respect for most political journalists. The inherent dishonesty of feigning objectivity when the whole purpose of pursuing the profession was to push politics is the main reason fueling my disresepct. Two recent examples of that which I speak, one from the Right and one from the Left, give reason to my instinct. The first comes from the Seattle Times, where several journalists erupted in cheers at news of Karl Rove's departure from the White House. "When word came in of Karl Rove's resignation, several people in the meeting started cheering," the paper's editorial page editor notes. "That sort of expression is simply not appropriate for a newsroom." Inappropriate? Yes. Unheard of? No. At least the editor was contrite. I have heard no such apologies from Fox News, which displayed a graphic (Hat tip: Chris Brunner) omitting the top-tier finishes of Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo while including the results from Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani that gave viewers the impression that they had finished close to the top. In fact, they had finished beneath Paul and Tancredo in the meaningless straw poll, but viewers would certainly think otherwise by viewing the misleading graphic. I liked it better when journalists worked for entities with the guts to wear their opinions on their mastheads: the Republican, the Democrat, the Whig, etc.

UPDATE: MSNBC's Joe Scarborough detailed on his "Morning Joe" program how people in MSNBC's newsroom incessantly booed President Bush's 2003 State of the Union Address. But remember: they're not partisans, really they're not.

There are still a few of those "Republican" and "Democrat" newspapers out there, in local communities. But I agree, its a sad state of affairs when the media today keeps up the meaningless charade of trying to be objective.

I believe most people want unbiased information. Unfortunately, all they can do to obtain it is use their own potentially biased judgment to decide what's unbiased. This creates a demand for biased news sources that fervently promote themselves as fair and balanced. News sources that admit to biases just can't compete because they don't allow their viewers, readers, and/or listeners to have the illusion of objectivity.

I think it's a good thing though, to have objectivity as a value in our culture even if that value isn't being practiced very well. It points society in the right direction when we teach our children to seek out accurate information and form their own opinions rather than accept pre-packaged beliefs.

Also, I'd like to state that reporters can hold an opinion, even express an opinion, and still report news objectively. Of the two examples you gave, the first is an example of reporters expressing an opinion and perhaps also behaving unprofessionally, but we don't know if they actually reported the news in a biased way. The second is an example of misleading or inaccurate information being presented, but we don't know how it happened.

"I'd like to state that reporters can hold an opinion, even express an opinion, and still report news objectively."

It's possible for partisans to be objective, but not likely.

On another note....Dan, I wanted to mention something about this Michael Savage business on "Open Thread" from last Friday but couldn't. Didn't think this would be shut off so soon. I know the reasons why, but is this a recent limitation?

Brian,

Looks like we don't really know if Fox is (relatively) "Fair and Balanced" or just claims to be, as well. See that's the thing, the left feels that it can conclude bias where it wants to argue it. But bias on the left has to be proven, where all of a sudden small gaps need to be seen as chasms. And your best defense is "we don't know".

You think you can ana-lyze the market demand for "biased" journalism, by only hinting at a bias on one side. On the other side, it's what we don't know that keeps from being able to support a conclusion that X is biased. You can only argue a market force for biased journalism, if there are examples of biased journalism. And then, provided that you are the least bit genuine, if your rules of skepticism are valid, then we can't just conclude that "certain" news source that "fervently promote themselves as fair and balanced" (Gee, I wonder who else could do that in light of the fact that its Fox's slogan?? ) are biased, but would seem to need to grant the same skepticism based on "what we don't know".

I personally don't care if they whoop and holler or boo. But I do reserve the right to judge for myself, given so express a reaction, whether or not their product reflects that, and then to switch products. Without pompous jerks trying to imply that I'm fleeing the light of day for my own pet paradigm.