Re:Michael Arrington: "We Need More Opinion In News, Not Less"
by uuilly on Thursday July 08, 2010 @06:12PM
(#1498961)
Yes. I actually stopped reading "news" and I only read people's opinions. Opinions are much more concise and it's far more informative to read two opposing opinions than to read one long meandering piece that tries to avoid having an opinion. The recipe for "news" at the NYT is an exhausting example of this:
"Some decision was made. Someone important said it was good b/c of A but others say it is bad b/c of B. 10 years ago when a similar decision was made, A was the result. But on the other hand it is very hard to measure B, and it's effects can be mitigated by C. An expert acknowledged the risk of B but said that the benefits of A made it worth it."
Usually the reporter's actual opinion was whatever side he gave the last word. In this case A. I find it tedious to play this passive aggressive game. I would rather read two articles saying:
This decision is good b/c of A.
and
This decision is bad b/c of B.
Like Arrington said, at least I know where they stand and why.
It's absolutely impossible to write without bias. If nothing else, you must choose an order in which to present the information, and that necessarily forces you to give preference to some things over others. But of course it runs much deeper than that, to assumptions the writer is making that he may not even be aware of.
I think that a journalist would be doing his readers a good service by allowing them to know his feelings, so that the reader could be better prepared to identify any biases, accidental or otherwise.