Monday, April 17, 2006
NPR Discusses Balance
Today, the hushed, rolling hills of NPR were mildly disturbed by the gusts of an actual, real semi-lively discussion about balance in journalism. The driving force was NPR’s man, Jeffrey Dvorkin, humorously denoted as an “ombudsman“, who is prone towards hysterically defensive arguments, played out in his head, using straw-men as targets, then making the turmoil manifest in speech, as he boldly goes where no man has gone before, swinging wildly with sophomoric slogans that never land.
I will say Dvorkin did make sense in one thing: his saying that interviewing bad guys has an effect that approaches validation. I wonder if the NYT is aware of this? They endlessly and sympathetically interview families of Palestinian murderers — often ignoring the families of the victims.
Jeff Jarvis, who actually sounds like an adult with a brain, felt that full disclosure is necessary for journalists. Dvorkin said self-revelation is an issue “only if you raise” personal experience as an issue; Dvorkin is weak on parsing language — it is the connotation part that escapes the man.
Christopher Hitchens said on Fox News not long ago that “most journalists are not very bright”. Bright people don’t conduct themselves like corporate ciphers seeking access at any moral cost. Also, with the novelistic range given journalists today, where the color of language is used to engage the reader/viewer, there is a moral ground to contend with, that any creative intelligence fully understands. If you say more than who what where when, how do you say it? Do you own the slant you are giving the story by that very color? Most journalists, given this extra power to try and be expressive, will always fall back on claims of objective reporting when criticized for the slant; they are dense to the implications of their choices of words and facts, to their elisions and dependent clauses — they whisper in your ear, but don’t want to admit it.