There are entire journalism courses on the topic of objectivity. AIUI, the takeaway is that humans are inherently biased and a part of good journalism is recognizing that and minimizing its effects to provide the best coverage one can. The idea that there can be something completely objective here is in some ways naïve. You can get a good overview in the Wikipedia articles on Journalism[0] and Media Bias[1]:
As for non-toxic, I definitely think that's possible, but involves a bigger conversation as to how people communicate with each other: the same self-awareness that's necessary for good journalism is necessary when people talk with each other day-to-day. It's not clear to me how we rebuild our ability to engage each other in a non-toxic way about important and divisive topics, but I think it's necessary and well-worth trying to figure out.
I don’t think it’s toxic to apply the utmost scrutiny to outlets like NYT. There have been many events that have demonstrated their decided lack of journalistic integrity (silently editing articles after publication, overt bias, playing with release timing...).
The internet has broken mainstream media’s monopoly on “the truth” so it seems a natural next step that they are viewed objectively based on their actions instead of their perceived and heavily marketed position of authority.
Postmodernism itself is the byproduct of the Information Age giving people access to multiple viewpoints. I’m glad to see the playing field leveled.
Unfortunately, it's been leveled so much, we're below sea level.
I despise propaganda as much as... Well, I despise it.
Unfortunately, the winners of 'breaking the MSM's monopoly on Truth' aren't any better then what they replaced (And are in many ways, much worse.) Their output is, by far and large, the worst kind of yellow journalism.
Unsurprisingly, nobody actually wants the truth. The people shouting from the rooftops about corruption and bias, and collusion in the NYT turn around and uncritically read about how Hillary is in cahoots with gay alien pedophiles operating out of the back room of a pizza joint. Or, alternatively, how this is totally the week that Trump's finished. (And did you see the great burn some celebrity gave him?)
There is no "objective" news; people will always have different ideas of truth; however, i think in this case it's easy to discern a difference by the objective of the actors.
Some actors are purposely attempting to distort colloquial understanding via persuasion and misinformation, others are attempting to describe that colloquial understanding to the best of their abilities.
Our modern shortcoming is that we've just lumped all of these things under the shorthand "News" and thereby implicitly gave them all the same credibility and importance. It used to be that the Editorials and Opinions were clearly denoted and segregated in the newspaper... not anymore.
Though we may disagree on the semantics of what constitutes #realnews determining whether someone is attempting to describe the world through the prism of their own perspective or proactively trying to persuade others to think the same as them is pretty easy to see.
We can get mired in the idea that nothing is perfect, so why bother, or we can make the best of what we have & understand that it will never be perfect.
(apologies for the offtopic nature of this diatribe, this is something I've been spending a lot of time thinking about lately)
I don't know - a guy on InfoWars was talking about how Hitler is still alive (sorry can't find the link). Getting rid of conspiracy type stuff like that would be a good start.
Who decides what's a conspiracy and what's an uncomfortable truth that powerful lobbies are effectively covering up? e.g. the broadest NSA SIG INT collection efforts, sub-concussive hits from football causing CTE, and sugar-rich "low fat" diets causing rampant diabetes were all at one point in time called baseless conspiracies by experts in these fields.
Actual evidence decides that. My general rule of thumb is, how easily supporters/detractors of an 'idea' let a third-party audit/research their findings and how they react to the results.
There is a big difference between "possibly biased" and "spreading verifiable falsehoods". There is a big difference between "reporting on corruption" and "inciting violence".
This kind of false equivalence is almost as toxic as the verifiable lies being promulgated by various "media" sources.
