It's just the same shit everywhere isn't it? The relentless power of white men to see the world centred around them, women & everyone else are just side characters to their story.
This is something that's bothered me for a long time. I'm skeptical of the entire idea of "objective" journalism--after all, we are all subjects, everyone is subjective in some way. All we can do is acknowledge, confront, and examine our own subjectivity. White men, as Jessica points out, have never been objective at all, merely in power. But the idea that one must be "objective" when writing has been ingrained in me since I was a kid and only since college did I begin to examine and reject it. And if we follow these editor's ideas about subjectivity to their illogical conclusions, then anyone who's had any human experience shouldn't be able to write about said experience...which would get pretty silly after a while, and the entire concept of journalism would fall apart. Haha. I think Jessica is right that having experience with something, like racism or sexual assault, would make someone more equipped to write about it--more attuned to nuance, more aware of their own subjectivity, etc.
I wonder, isn’t checking for bias (whether intended or unintended) in stories what editors are for? I don’t see what the issue would be as long as there’s a second pair of eyes looking over the piece to make sure it’s not unreasonably biased (and i say unreasonably because let’s face it, there’s some level of bias in everything we read).
Media leaders don't like their authority challenged. They know which way the wind is blowing, so they want a cover of respectability/diversity but they want it the way most white people saw (and often still see) non-white people: 'Emancipation is fine but "they" should know their place.'
During the decades I was a working journalist, I was "useful" on certain beats where the newsroom wanted to look as if it were not a bastion of white male supremacy, but "too biased" to cover any subject I knew the nuances of because THEY AFFECTED MY LIFE, like the Equal Rights Amendment (back in the 1980s). Same with the Black journos, who were "proof" of equal employment opportunity, even though they were sometimes sent into physical danger in the name of "fairness" and used as props in the name of Affirmative Action. One of the young Black women hired at that time thrived in the new age of live broadcasting. You've heard of Oprah, I believe?
It's just the same shit everywhere isn't it? The relentless power of white men to see the world centred around them, women & everyone else are just side characters to their story.
This is something that's bothered me for a long time. I'm skeptical of the entire idea of "objective" journalism--after all, we are all subjects, everyone is subjective in some way. All we can do is acknowledge, confront, and examine our own subjectivity. White men, as Jessica points out, have never been objective at all, merely in power. But the idea that one must be "objective" when writing has been ingrained in me since I was a kid and only since college did I begin to examine and reject it. And if we follow these editor's ideas about subjectivity to their illogical conclusions, then anyone who's had any human experience shouldn't be able to write about said experience...which would get pretty silly after a while, and the entire concept of journalism would fall apart. Haha. I think Jessica is right that having experience with something, like racism or sexual assault, would make someone more equipped to write about it--more attuned to nuance, more aware of their own subjectivity, etc.
I wonder, isn’t checking for bias (whether intended or unintended) in stories what editors are for? I don’t see what the issue would be as long as there’s a second pair of eyes looking over the piece to make sure it’s not unreasonably biased (and i say unreasonably because let’s face it, there’s some level of bias in everything we read).
This is so obvious and so ignored. Thanks for keeping up the pressure and continuing to press the point.
Excellent points! 👏👏👏
'Media leaders should know better.'
I'm pretty sure they do know.
Media leaders don't like their authority challenged. They know which way the wind is blowing, so they want a cover of respectability/diversity but they want it the way most white people saw (and often still see) non-white people: 'Emancipation is fine but "they" should know their place.'
During the decades I was a working journalist, I was "useful" on certain beats where the newsroom wanted to look as if it were not a bastion of white male supremacy, but "too biased" to cover any subject I knew the nuances of because THEY AFFECTED MY LIFE, like the Equal Rights Amendment (back in the 1980s). Same with the Black journos, who were "proof" of equal employment opportunity, even though they were sometimes sent into physical danger in the name of "fairness" and used as props in the name of Affirmative Action. One of the young Black women hired at that time thrived in the new age of live broadcasting. You've heard of Oprah, I believe?