is it possible for journalists not taking sides?
405276
I do not believe that journalists can be completely objective about anything they investigate. In fact, I don't believe anybody can be completely objective about anything. Our experiences form our identities and those experiences influence our responses. Journalists are people too.\n\nAlso from a scientific basis, there is something called the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle in quantum physics which states "one cannot assign, with full precision, values for certain pairs of observable variables, including the position and momentum, of a single elementary particle at the same time even in theory. It furthermore precisely quantifies the imprecision by providing a lower bound (greater than zero) for the product of the standard deviations of the measurements."\n\nWhat this loosely means is that when you examine something, you end up influencing it. While this principle is meant for elementary particles, I think it can be applied to things in general.\n\nFor example, if you were a journalist covering President Bush and his handling of the Iraqi War - the way the President interacts with you may influence the way you portray him or which side you believe in. \n\nHowever, that's not to say that journalists cannot try at least to be objective and present both sides of the story - allowing equal opportunity for both sides to present the facts or whatever spin that side whats to present and allow the audience to decide for themselves what their stance is.\n\nIf you enjoy movies, check out the movie Good Night, and Good Luck that just came out on DVD recently. It's the movie that was produced and directed by George Clooney about Edward R Murrow's interaction with Senator Joseph McCarthy. The Edward R Murrow in the movie was presented as trying to be objective in his presentation, but you will see how hard that is as we all have beliefs.
971814
The Press is indeed doing yeomen service in keeping the public informed about the events of importance. But for them, much of the public would remain ignorant and politically unaware. It plays an important role in educating the public and in forming the opinion. However, very often they tend to overdo the thing. They often sensationalize and incite passion to a degree uncalled for. The Press Council should be more vigilant in containing this problem.
831871
I believe so, but it is their rights. Ethics and morals are being overshadowed by ego's and opinions. It is sad really as upon my return I was scorned by several people. I wish the media would just stay the hell out. All they print is garbage and half stories and it is making the war that much more difficult.
1035589
If  you could get any of them to take responsibility for the dishonesty I would be surprised. I never have. The only time it happens, (as far as I can tell) is when the story has gone public and embarrassment will sometimes cause them to hang the lowest guy on the totem pole.
827923
writers will always try to convince the reader to belive what they belive. that's why you are taught in writing class in college. If they could not write a good argument, they wouldn't be hired by the new york times etc..etc. \nIf they belive somthing in plictics or history, they might write a rather slanted artcile about it only giving the pros or ekse the cons of that particulllar isssue.
977473
Unfortunately no,I wished they could be but Tony Snow went into detail about it when he was doing his show.I like it when Snow lays into them tho.Freedom of Press and when they hold a press conference its to the biased Dan Rather azz sucking libs.
560879
I never get my news from the main stream media, I am a big fan of reporters without borders and their press freedom campaign, the news can be found on this multi lingual site http://www.rsf.org/\nThe best way to look at any news is as an opinion, only when you have gathered the opinions of as many people as possible can you form your own opinion.
171769
Its possible but not probable.  Reason being is because people want things their way or no way.  They refuse to comprimise.  So, they declare war.  Its a sad fact of life.
647144
Yes. Some just don't want to admit to it.
719082
There is no neutrality as with Fox and it's right wing news. It's only the work of propagandists. If you're aware that most likely your not really getting the news. Look for news with a neutral opinion such as PBS Jim Learer, that just reports the news. You make up your mind.
63829
Of course it's possible. Unlikely, though. People have too many hang-ups and the only way they can think to make themselves feel better sometimes, is to denigrate others.
899473
Yes, I think that they can, if having reporters along would jeopardize the mission or put American troops in trouble I think they should have that right. I do however think that they should not be able to pick and choose which reporters that they take with them.
1043239
To some extent the policy of a country will always be against the views of some folks.\n\nAlthough there is some rationale between resisting perceived invaders this does not justify blowing up a train full of commuters in the UK or Spain, crashing planes into buildings in the US or blowing yourself up in a crown of old folks in Iraq.
136888
In any journalism there will probably be a slant towards the writer's viewpoint, but yes, objectivism is a positive quality in journalism and the better writers can report without showing their opinions much.  But in general, the press and journalism in America are definitely under liberal influence.  \n\nConsider two recent incidents: Britney Spears driving with her infant son in her lap and Dick Cheney accidentally shooting a fellow hunter.  Both were irresponsible and similar in nature, but the press and media made a big stink about the Cheney incident simply because he is a conservative government official, while a recent AP article sympathized with Britney.  More and more it seems like journalism's biggest goal nowadays is to fling mud on conservatives, which isn't how journalism should be.
670713
... usually a paper does a story on both candidates... maybe not on the same day though\n\nsome papers are very skewed toward the liberal or conservative sides though... depends on what you're reading...\n\nI don't think they have to offer it though... it's not regulated by the government as much like TV networks are...
1034550
You're right, this cloak of anonymity allows a person to overstep their mouth with statements that ordinarily would not be espoused so freely. \nYeah, civility is the key factor which would allow this medium to flourish. Without it, it's less engaging and right-on.\nI'm with you on this.\nSo,\nLet's be mindfully kind with our answers\n...or don't answer at all. \n'Ya know ?\n\nThanks, folks.\nGood Question.\nPeace.
821506
Sorry you are experiancing this. Someone must not be comfortable with you or your views. I'm not really suprised though, it seems some people will do anything to  prevent a person from speaking for themself and presenting a reasonable point of view. If they want to ask silly questions (which can be fun) let them do it for themself.