Feb 26 2009
Relocated: Time’s Interesting Commnet
Monday, March 17, 2008
Time’s Interestng Comments
Time Magazine recently criticized other journalistic outlets for endorsing candidates. They said it compromises journalistic integrity. First of all, this is not true. What’s the difference between editorializing on one issue (an election) versus any other issue? It’s just as non-neutral, and often just as partisan. There is a place for endorsements, and any other opinion and editorial material (conveniently called the OpEd section, imagine that), and papers should feel free to use them, or allow their columnists and readers to use them, as they see fit.
And the idea of there being a clear place (the OpEd section) for these comments, is a key point, and one that perhaps the staff of Time should pay more attention to. I know that magazine is a different medium than newspaper, and that as such, there’s a little more room for editorializing throughout the publication. I think it’s absurd, however, that Time ran this article in its briefing section. To simplify, let’s say there’s three types of stories: news, features, and OpEd. Which category should a section called “Briefings” fit into? How about lines like, “This is embarrassing for the Bush Administration;” “But blaming the Administration alone for this sad state of affairs is off the mark;” or ” In the Middle East, it’s not just the fighting that’s cyclical; it’s also the desperate chase for an improbable resolution.” That’s right. An issue after Time attacked other media outlets for endorsing candidates, saying it compromises their journalistic neutrality, the magazine runs a story with several examples of obvious editorialization, and not a single source cited during the entire article, as a news piece.
Who’s really risking journalistic integrity?
Posted by Zach at 5:51 PM 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: Chicago Sun Times, journalism, journalistic integrity, media, neutrality, press, Time magazine
