What makes a news source a "good" one?

[Gary Childress]

What makes a news source a "good" one? Some strive to be "fair and balanced". Some strive for "accuracy" some for "objectivity". But are these things without their pitfalls?

Balance is sometimes used in reference to political content in the mass media. This usage began in Britain in the early part of the 20th century when the conservative Tories were unpopular and receiving little coverage through the BBC. In order to provide an intellectual rationalization for an increased level of Conservative content, John Reith, the BBC's founder, promoted a concept called balance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_balance

If the neo-nazis are receiving little attention in the media, should the media be "balanced" and talk more about the ideas of the neo-nazis?

Should news media strive for objectivity?

Objectivity is a significant principle of journalistic professionalism. Journalistic objectivity can refer to fairness, disinterestedness, factuality, and nonpartisanship, but most often encompasses all of these qualities. Advocacy journalism is one alternative to objective journalism.

But should the media be "objective" and detached from everything?

Another example of an objection to objectivity, according to communication scholar David Mindich (Just the Facts: How "Objectivity" Came to Define American Journalism, 1998), was the coverage that the major papers (most notably the New York Times) gave to the lynching of thousands of African Americans during the 1890s. News stories of the period often described with detachment the hanging, immolation and mutilation of men, women and children by mobs. Under the regimen of objectivity, news writers often attempted to balance these accounts by recounting the alleged transgressions of the victims that provoked the lynch mobs to fury. David Mindich argues that this may have had the effect of normalizing the practice of lynching.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(journalism)

Then there's "advocacy journalism."

Advocacy journalism is a genre of journalism that intentionally and transparently adopts a non-objective viewpoint, usually for some social or political purpose. Because it is intended to be factual, it is distinguished from propaganda. It is also distinct from instances of media bias and failures of objectivity in media outlets, which attempt to be—or which present themselves as—objective or neutral.

But how different is advocacy journalism from outright propaganda, the very thing that journalists should perhaps revile most?

Some fear the activity of "advocacy journalists" will be harmful to the reputation of the mainstream press as an objective, reliable source of information. Another concern is that undiscriminating readers will accept the facts and opinions advanced in advocacy pieces as if they were objective and representative, becoming unknowingly and perhaps dangerously misinformed as a result.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advocacy_journalism

What trait or traits make a news source a "good" one to turn to?

 

[Perfection]

The best news sources try to be referees, not biased against either side, but calling out foul play when they see it.

 

[amadeus]

Variety, depth of content, and at least an attempt to be not entirely partisan.

 

[mangxema]

But how different is advocacy journalism from outright propaganda, the very thing that journalists should perhaps revile most?

It's not. If there's ever an intended effect of the reporting, it's propaganda. 'Stop drop and roll' is also propaganda. Useful and desirable maybe, but still propaganda.

The best news sources try to be referees, not biased against either side, but calling out foul play when they see it.

Couldn't say it better myself.

 

[Camikaze]

Well, I think the best new sources are the ones I agree with.

 

[civ_king]

I like CNN and Politifact, CNN has gotten attacked for being to liberal AND to conservative, I call that fairly neutral, hell in the opinion section they have one liberal and one conservative... and Politifact simply rates how true statements are, I have seen any other place do that

 

[sonorakitch]

CNN is pretty awful actually.

The only good source of relatively objective journalism on television is PBS, more specifically the News Hour with Jim Leher. I also enjoy the MacLaughlin Group, as they have assembled a good balance of journalists who thoughtfully debate rather than bicker.

 

[kulade]

PBS and C-SPAN are usually good with content and straightforwardness, but majority of the other stations overload on inane political commentary (regardless of its political polarity).

 

[King of Town]

I go with NPR or MPR usually. I never thought I'd get to the point in my life I listen to the radio for something other than music, but I'm there.

 

[azzaman333]

Facts.

The more opinions, the worse it is.

 

[Pannonius]

All mainstream media are liars.

 

[downtown]

I don't have time to make a real post here...so this is a bookmark post.

 

[El_Machinae]

A news source is a good one if the audience comes away knowing more than they went in with, and have had misconceptions corrected. I agree with sonorakitch, in that CNN is awful. They don't actually get any information out, it seems. All we learn are the opinions of a couple of pundits. At least, this is my impression of Blitzer or Lou Dobbs.

I like Canada's CTV, because it gives a stream of stories. It doesn't go into depth, so you just learn what's happening, where. I also like Canada's CBC, more and more, because you'll learn something about whatever story you're listening about.

My hatred for mainstream media really came to the fore during America's presidential election. I realised that after a week of watching the news, I didn't really have any idea what McCain's or Obama's medical policies were going to be. It's something I'm very interested in, and it's something they ostensibly reported on, but the quality of information was so low that I wasn't actually informed

 

[sonorakitch]

^

If you've ever watched Idiocracy, there is a great bit in there regarding Fox News. The fancy graphics and monster truck announcers can be carried across all the major news networks. Why I like PBS is the budget doesn't allow for fancy graphics and monster truck announcers, but instead dives into the real news events of the day with equal time on both sides. I really think it is quality news. I haven't seen much of CBC, but I'm not particularly fond of the BBC or Sky across the pond.

To have good quality news, it needs to be delivered intelligently and with all the facts on the table...if need be produced by members of opposing viewpoints and delivered fairly. At the end of the day though, non-news savvy Americans (and others) enjoy the fancy graphics and cheezy monster truck announcers, as it reminds them of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire and Wife Swap. Unfortunately.

I will say I do enjoy Bill O'Reilly though, so I'm probably a spawn of satan on here....

~Chris

 

[GoodGame]

I'm not a journalist, but I'd think a good balance of sources (with the understanding that all sources have some bias), uses sources that recognize scientific standards and try to apply them when appropriate, seeks to give the largest voice to the most authoritative / primary sources involved, and doesn't seek to distort the information in favor of oversimplification.

 

[civ_king]

Hey, I said CNN.com not the TV station...

 

[downtown]

Here are my thoughts (I currently work as a journalist for a small newspaper)...

The number one most important rule for news reporting is getting your facts right.

The number two most important rule for news reporting is getting your facts right.

Accuracy is key. The only thing you have to sell is your credibility, and if you lose that because you are perpetually inaccurate, people won't trust your account of the news. Reports, 'specially Political reporters, are typically reeeeaaaally conservative about this actually.

Its impossible to really be "objective". I think a lot of MSM TV journalists fall into this trap, and give extra weight to sides that don't deserve it. If you report "The Earth is Round", you don't go find a flat-earther to give the other point of view do you?

Analysis has a place in the news...but the viewer needs to be informed as to what is fact, and what is analysis. It's when the reader gets confused that we get problems. The "MSM" (the big 6), do a really bad job with this (they provide low information news as well)

I get my political news from Politico, PoliticalWire, and CQ. I get my sports news from ESPN (albeit less and less), and from the TrueHoop Blog Network.

 

[sonorakitch]

If you report "The Earth is Round", you don't go find a flat-earther to give the other point of view do you?

However, that is a universal fact. OTOH, a report regarding sea level changes because of melting ice could be permanent, and could be seasonal, and thus would require reps from both sides to present their ideas as fact. I think that is an important key when delivering news. There is news of pure fact, and there is news of different perceptions of fact which are justifiable.

I agree with your analysis of analysis. I think for the most part news organizations do a decent job of differentiating the difference between analysis and fact, and there is no better source for this than PBS.

~Chris