« I don’t think objectivity was ever attainable. It was a false high standard that we could not help but fail. And I think the blurring has always been there. The problem is, we in journalism have not admitted it.
We were never in the job of delivering the truth. We’ve always been in the job of helping the public decide what is true. And I think that we lost sight of that.
The fact they I can go back and forth now among channels and see different viewpoints is better than only getting one effort to give me « one size fits all » news, as if it could give me the truth, and it never could. »
C’est un peu ce qu’on dit chez Cent Papiers. On ne peut garantir l’objectivité, surtout lorsque l’on contrôle si peu le produit, mais la somme des divers points de vue, et le fait de les confronter aux commentaires des lecteurs et à ce qui émane des médias traditionnels aide à mieux cerner le débat.
Sur l’éthique des blogues:
« I see three ethics that I’ve learned in blogs. One is the ethic of the correction. Blogs are, frankly, much quicker and better about correcting themselves than I saw in mainstream media in my time.
Two is the ethic of the link, which says, « Don’t take my word for it. Here’s my source material. Here’s what I’m talking about. Here’s what I’m disagreeing with. »
And the third is the ethic of transparency. Now, of course, that can be taken to a cartoonish extent and one need not be able to make assumptions just because there’s a one-word label. Oh, I’m liberal; ergo, this is what I think. I’m not suggesting that.
But I think that there is a need for people to know our perspectives, our background, our vantage points, and our views. And then we go then beyond that and take that out of the discussion.
Now I think the public spends too much time trying to figure out our hidden agendas, and we try well to hide them. Instead, I think we need to put our own views out there and then say, « All right, now let’s discuss the facts. » I absolutely agree we want the facts, but we want them in context. »
Pour ce qui est de la correction, c’est certainement quelque chose d’important sur les blogues et autres plateformes de journalisme civique. Par exemple, l’auteur de
Amateur of the cult Cult of the amateur peut difficilement corriger ses erreurs, mais ici, je peux facilement le faire. Sinon, la transparence, c’est sans doute le mot-clé dans tout ça, et c’est ce qui est le plus difficile à reproduire.
À la question: « est-ce que le public est capable de faire la différence entre l’opinion et le factuel ? »
« I think it’s terribly insulting to the public, whom we trust our democracy, not to think that they cannot tell the difference between fact and opinion. I believe that people do. I think they are smart. And if you don’t believe that, then you kind of don’t believe in democracy, free markets, reformed religion, lots of things. The reasons we are journalists is to help inform the public so the public can be wiser and make better decisions. »
Effectivement, il serait con de prendre le public pour des cons.