Podcast: A conversation with Steve Greene

by

Podcast: 27:04 duration, 24.7 MB MP3 – Posted October 09, 2006
Raw audio, recorded October 06, 2006.

To listen to high quality audio, click here –> MP3 File Here

After a casual lunch Steve Sloan and Professor Steve Greene discuss “new journalism”
Included in this discussion is the ethics of anonymous blogging as it relates to journalism, objectivity verses transparency and how new journalism may in fact be very much like very old journalism from 100 years ago.

Advertisements

One Response to “Podcast: A conversation with Steve Greene”

  1. Cynthia McCune Says:

    Enjoyed the podcast, especially Steve Greene’s reminder that the news as we know it has only been around since about the 1920s…and that before that, the news norm was much more opinionated and partisan. Really, you could say the objective news format of the last 80 years is the abberration…that it’s the idea of news as objective, unbiased and neutral that’s the exception to the rule.

    What I think what frustrates many people, and encourages them to seek out more opinionated news coverage, is the journalistic fear of taking sides that makes much of today’s news so bland, uninformative and downright wimpy. Nobody’s willing to call a spade a spade, except occasionally on the editorial page. It’s all “so-and-so said this….but so-and-so said that…and we wouldn’t dare imply that one of them isn’t right.’

    Well, sometimes one side is clearly right and the other isn’t, and I think journalists and news organizations do the public a disservice by pretending that all sides/arguments in a debate are of equal merit when they’re not. The newswriting doctrine of objectivity makes it easy for officials and vocal minorities to manipulate news coverage. It’s one of the reasons we ended up mired in a bogus war in Iraq; it’s why we are still “debating” things that should be old hat by now, such as the theory of evolution and whether or not global warming is real (duh!).

    So I’ve got to say, I’m sick and tired of our slavish adherence to “he said/she said” journalism. I agree that journalists should emphasize transparency, accuracy, fairness and balance, but I do not think they should be so constricted by the rules of “journalistic objectivity” that they are unable to point out when a source provides inaccurate information, misleads or lies. In those cases, “he said/she said” journalism simply doesn’t cut it.

    Of course, we haven’t even touching on the commercial and structural reasons behind the prevalence of “he said/she said” journalism…but that’s another story, another post.

    By the way, don’t foget that blogging didn’t start the trend away from bland, he said/she said reporting — talk radio did. Blogging just allows more voices.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: