Impartial Partisanship

Blog024a10


Chris Hughes:

Welcome to Our Redesign

With this issue, we relaunch The New Republic. Our goals may be somewhat different from those of the magazine’s founding fathers, but we share their unabashed idealism. We believe that our new hyper-information age is thrilling, but not entirely satisfying. We believe that there must remain space for journalism that takes time to produce and demands a longer attention span-writing that is at once nourishing and entertaining. We aim to tell the most important, timely stories about politics, culture, and big ideas that matter to you.

The journalism in these pages will strive to be free of party ideology or partisan bias, although it will showcase passionate writing and will continue to wrestle with the primary questions about our society. Our purpose is not simply to tell interesting stories, but to always ask why these stories matter and tie their reporting back to our readers. We hope to discern the hidden patterns, to connect the disparate facts, and to find the deeper meaning, a layer of understanding beyond the daily headlines.


But wait! There’s more!

Althouse:

I must say, I’d never paid any attention to Chris Hughes before, and I didn’t yesterday until pushed by my commenters. On the evidence of the interview he and Franklin Foer did with the President, I saw him as another media suckup doing Democratic Party politics under cover of journalism. Seeing this “free of party ideology or partisan bias” business now only inclines me to scoff. If that’s what you wanted as your brand, why did you lead off with that interview?

But I realize I need to get up to speed on this Chris Hughes character. I didn’t even bother to name him in yesterday’s post, and I’ve only just made a tag for him now. Sorry, I didn’t bother watching “The Social Network.” To the extent that I follow celebrities, I’m not particularly drawn to new media businessmen. I can keep track of Mark Zuckerberg up to a point, but I’ve never paid attention to the lesser Facebookians.

Here‘s a HuffPo article from last March about Hughes’s purchase of TNR, noting that he was “a key player in President Obama’s online organizing efforts in 2008.” Why would we expect this man — who’s only 29, by the way — to strive to be free of party ideology or partisan bias? I’ve got to assume the striving is toward seeming to be free of party ideology and partisan bias, because that’s what journalists always say they are doing when they have ideological and partisan goals.


Partisans have just as much right to be journalists as anyone else. But they should be honest about their point of view. Otherwise the foundation for everything they say is based upon a lie.


About Myiq2xu - BA, JD, FJB

I was born and raised in a different country - America. I don't know what this place is.
This entry was posted in Media, Media Zombies and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

35 Responses to Impartial Partisanship

  1. votermom says:

    Let us flatter you, gentle readers, until you agree with everything we say.

  2. myiq2xu says:

  3. angienc (D) says:

    Scarier — they actually do believe they are not partisan — Dear Leader is so *obviously* right that everyone who disagrees with him is an “absolutist” without “principles” (his words).
    This is where a society soaked in moral relativism has lead us. Hence,
    drone killings of US citizens (and sundry other innocents) totally OK now that Obama is doing it and you’re a racist for thinking otherwise.

  4. It’s easy to be “free of partisan ideology” when you’ve prematurely declared your party’s ideology is the only one left standing. The GOP made this mistake 2003-2004. Look what happened to them. As soon as the coming marginalization of progs hits, I intend to get up in some faces.

  5. Anybody else remember when partisan journalism was found on the Op-Ed pages? You know- where it is clearly labeled ‘OPINION.”
    What has happened to journalism?
    Never mind- (non) education happened.

    • HELENK says:

      it was cheaper to take steno classes then journalism classes

      • LOL I remember taking steno!
        Of course that was back in the stone age when kids were put in tracks. College, business and general. We were SOOOOO backwards then! In those days the great minds had not yet gotten everyone to believe in trophies and degrees for all!

      • myiq2xu says:

        Here’s how it works. The President makes decisions. He’s the decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Just put ’em through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration? You know, fiction!
        – Stephen Colbert, White House Correspondents’ Dinner

      • DeniseVB says:

        Someone posted a page of steno from a retro site on FB the other day and asked do you know what this is? Most guessed Arabic. LOL.

  6. HELENK says:

    http://minx.cc/?post=336961

    another failure of journalism.
    mendendez and the underage prostitutes not published until after the election.

    how many stories were held back until after the election in 2008 and look what that did

  7. OT- but seriously? It took them five days to notice a prisoner had just walked out of the jail? Using the same technique he had used in another jail?
    http://gma.yahoo.com/nationwide-manhunt-escaped-inmate-143716422–abc-news-topstories.html

  8. yttik says:

    Partisans really don’t have the right to be journalists. You can’t serve two masters. In the olden days when a partisan wanted to present his ideology, we’d call it an editorial or an opinion.

    Journalism was supposed to be about presenting the facts without opinion or prejudice.

    • Yup. Who, What, When, Where- all abandoned. Now it is all WHY with no facts backing up the conclusions.

      • DeniseVB says:

        I follow the NYT and WaPo on FB and enjoy mixing it up with the commenters, mostly by asking questions the “journalist” failed to include in the 5Ws. Though doubt their “social media” people are anything more than former Obama OFA drool bucket staff.

  9. myiq2xu says:

  10. HELENK says:

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/01/palin-paid-per-word-at-fox-study-155388.html?ml=po_r

    does anyone wish that the stenos had put this much effort into checking backtrack.

    counting her words, come on!!!!!!!

  11. HELENK says:

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/27/Dictator-Obama-DC-Appeals-Court-Ruling-Has-No-Impact

    backtrack bunch tells court ” screw you” your NLRB ruling has no impact. bill coming before congress to defund NLRB

  12. myiq2xu says:

    AceofSpades:

    The media claims, for example, that “ethics” preclude them from revealing their voting histories and their politics, because revealing such would compromise their objectivity.

    Bullshit. Their objectivity is already compromised. Objectivity is compromised by bias; it is not compromised by the admission of bias. In fact, the admission of bias increases partiality. Hiding one’s bias is dishonest as a first matter but then further creates an environment in which honesty is denigrated, and thus leads to further dishonesty.

    The industries have imposed this rule not to serve the public better but to withhold from the public crucial information, which information, while helpful and important to the public in evaluating media reports, would hurt the media itself. That is, if CNN admitted it was liberal, it would in fact be providing more helpful, useful information to its audience, but some of that audience might stop watching it.

    This “rule” is a complete lie, and an indefensible one. The “ethical rule” only exists to deceive the public and is directly contrary to the interests of the public; the only beneficiary of this “ethical rule” is the industry itself.

    So I guess we shouldn’t be too surprised that the media is now treating an “ethical rule,” supposedly dictated by non-self-interested considerations, as what it always was, a simple matter of self-interest.

  13. foxyladi14 says:

    the only beneficiary of this “ethical rule” is the industry itself.
    Amen

Comments are closed.