A couple of weeks ago, Joy’s link to this had me shaking with laughter and adding yet another person who never heard of me to my friends’ list. Checking another of my friends’ LJs last night, I came across another post by this guy that had me laughing out loud, and led to me checking his main page. That brought me to this, which was kind of funny, sure, but thought provoking, especially considering certain recent developments in my life (that I won’t go into in a public post). His comments led to this post, which continues to be thought provoking.

When is she a reporter and when is she a columnist? In the European model of the press, that is not as big of an issue

IMO, this is the heart of the matter. It is denying human nature to think that anyone can write in a totally objective manner, because we are all subject to our own thoughts and paradigms on a subject. Sometimes we don’t care very much about it, so we shrug and say, “Whatever - do what you want,” and sometimes we have passionate opinions and really, really want to persuade everyone else to see things our way. In this case, I think Europe actually has the right idea; while we have the right to expect honesty from reporters, it’s foolish to think that the reporters’ and editors’ opinions will not color the story, even if they think they’re being wholly objective about it. The nature of language ensures it; word choice demonstrates it. It can be as simple as choosing an adjective, as in Variety’s frequent labeling of BitTorrent as “piracy software,” or the manner of reporting an event as promoting or opposing something, as in the distinction between “pro-life” or “anti-abortion” as a description of an event. It’s not necessary to rail against “idiots and fools and bigots” to convey an opinion on a subject (though it can be satisfying when one is thoroughly irritated and exasperated with them), and in fact, the more subtle the shading, the more effective it is as a method of persuasion.

Rush Limbaugh, king of bombast, is not subtle, nor does he claim to be. He is, however, very much aware of the effectiveness of this subtlety, because he calls the major media outlets on it every time he turns around. While I often tire of the over-the-top tone he frequently uses, his openly opinionated bluntness is refreshing, and is part of the reason I prefer his print newsletter to his radio show. (Personal preference, and his stupid quotes section frequently has me laughing out loud.) It does take a certain amount of effort to filter out the opinion-disguised-as-fact in many major news articles, and the constant struggle to get through the garbage can be exhausting. It’s no wonder that people tune in to his show; not only does he discuss things from the point of view that a majority of us share, but he cuts down the foggy blather that wears us out when we have to read or watch or listen to regular, so-called “objective” news reporting.

I have read that Europeans laugh at us for expecting our news reporting to be objective, and given what I know about human nature, they’re right to do so. Some of the writers I’ve met on the forum at Writer’s Weekly are aware of this, and acknowledge that it’s not possible to be 100% objective, though they do their best, given the limitations that come with being human. I have to wonder, though, how long it will take to shift to a more reasonable paradigm in the media, since apparently the majority of the media themselves are generally resisting the notion that they’re not any more capable than the average human being to view the world without the filter of their own understanding.

I will end with this note to HolyOffice: Feel free to restore the GetReligion link to your online profile. We appreciate the support. Thanks for reading, and please keep writing. You are, as Southerners would say, funny as all get out.

On this I have to agree. Funnier than all get out. Go read his posts.