The first thing I thought of when this post was raised was when Anderson Cooper stuck it to the Democratic Senator from Louisiana who was patting herself and other politicians on the back for the great job they've done. He was basically like "people are dying! bodies are rotting! you guys screwed up so shut the hell up and come bring help out here!" It was awesome, I caught it live. Now CNN (Where Cooper works) claims to be objective in its news coverage but this was obviously not unbiased. It was very much anti-government response. Yet I found myself being happy that journalists were starting to be a friend to the people again. Similarly in the vietnam era (The television war) journalists exposed the true horrors and failures of vietnam in order to help and educate the citizens of america and get us out of the war. Personally I don't know if this is what I want to happen. But Holy Shit if it does not work. I'd have to say it would be hard to argue with Anderson Cooper on that particular day and that is why I think people are moving toward a less objective form of journalism now. Because it brings in the public.

I think modern journalism takes more of an interpretive style--mixed with elements of popularization (news sources popularizing their interpretation of the facts). News outlets focus on the image of public officials, and try to make that image reflect within the popular opinion about the party that the official represents.
I chose to examine a washingtonpost.com article describing House Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi's argument to pull out of Iraq (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/01/AR200512...) . The headline reads, "Democratic Lawmakers Splinter on Iraq: Many Surprised as Pelosi Calls for a Fast Pullout. In the article, Pelosi's comment is put into the context of "increasingly aggressive critiques" by Democrats on President Bush's war policy. Not only do we get the specific context, but the article also makes implicit jabs at Democratic Party leadership by describing their many different viewpoints about Iraq in light of the parties perceived weakness on the issue of national security. Pelosi's comments are used to make her look hesitant and unwise--an image that echoes the lable "flip-flopper."
I believe that we choose the path of interpretivism over the ideal of objectivism becuase we know that the "facts" will always be framed a certain way, so we want to hear the context of the facts to identify the bias. Also, we choose the path of popularization because citizens increasingly feel the divide between themselves and the people in power, thus, they would like to get a sense of understanding the character of their representatives through news stories.

I may be in the minority here, but my first instinct is to trust news sources. I may question their interpretation of an event, but I trust them that it happened. My mother always told me that you can't believe in everything you see on TV. She was right, of course, but it's really difficult to sort the truth from the fiction, if the fiction exists.

Washington Post, December 2 (it's from the fuuuuuture!)
More in U.S. Expressing Doubts About Death Penalty
By Peter Slevin

How incredibly postmodern is it that time no longer exists as a continuum of past, present, and future, but as an inescapable place in which all time collapses--tomorrow's news happened yesterday and we read it today. ;)

Anyhoo, this article begins with a short narrative about the 1993 execution of Ruben Cantu, a 17 year old who insisted that he had been framed. The case has been re-opened now that Cantu's co-defendant and the "sole surviving witness" offer their testimony to Cantu's innocence. The article gives one side:

Oppenents of the death penalty suspect that Cantu may represent what they have long expected to find: an innocent person put to death. Houston law professor David Dow said that the case shows that "we make mistakes in death penalty cases, too."

The results of a public opinion poll seem to indicate that many Americans are skeptical of the system: "nearly two-thirds of Americans support the death penalty, but that is a significant drop from the peak, in 1994, when 80 percent of respondents told Gallup pollsters they were in favor of capital punishment."

A quote from the president of the National District Attorneys Association constitutes another "side" of the issue: "prosecutors in the 38 states with a death penalty 'by and large believe in it as a deterrent and believe it should be used wisely, sparingly.'"

The article presents the status of the death penalty debate in New York, Wisconsin, and Texas. The reporter explains the response in these states through a quote from an Austin rep: "We are seeing a mood change. Legislative and executive branches are responding to a clear change in public confidence." The remaining paragraphs present the contested details of the Cantu case and provide single-point arguments from the prosecuting lawyer and the trial judge. The article ends with:

Guilty or innocent, Cantu could not have been executed if he were prosecuted now. According to this year's Supreme Court ruling, he was too young at the time of the crime.

The reporter is clearly attempting to write an objective article. He outlines the knowable facts of Cantu's case, provides statistics without commentary and, technically, he provides competing arguments (the pro-death penalty voice is largely absent). A bias exists in that the reporter uses public opinion polls, which suggest a decline in pro-death penalty sentiment, to justify his report on anti-death penalty legislation in specific states. A completely objective report might have said: the Cantu case is open, it has sparked debate from these groups, public opinion seems to align here. The objective article would be more concise; it would limit the reporter's inclination to delve deeper into some aspects and ignore others. Objectivity, as an ideal, assumes that all is not and cannot be known--does it follow that the more information we receive, the more we question the absence of information? If an article proposes to define an event with seemingly relevant information, then that is a statement of "knowing" and a reader, if they are critical, should question what is not known and not reported. If the article appears within an objective frame--if objectivity is clearly the reporter's goal--then there will be no story, no context, no indictment or explanation of cause or consequence. The objective article presents facts and does not mediate a settlement. Popular opinion does not seem to care for unmediated experiences, so we respond to narratives that give us information and propose resolution. ...at least I think. I could be wrong. This post has hurt my brain.

Schudson describes how journalists found their way into interpretive journalism due to a variety of factors regarding society and the economy. Though a "major change," this interpretative journalism wasn't that far from objectivity. "That it be the consensus of this society that editors should devote a larger amount of attention and space to explanatory and interpretative news and to presenting a background of information which will enable the average reader more adequately to understand the movement and significance of events" was the ideal. however, explanatory and interpretative information means biased and not exactly truthful. no matter how many perspectives given, they can't be trusted. Why have we chosed radical uncertainty over the ethic of ebjectivity? because how can we really trust the objectivity. "Where all news comes at second-hand, where all the testimony is uncertain, men cease to respond to truths, and respond simply to opinions. The environment in which they act is not the realities themselves, but the pseudo-environment of reports, rumors, and guesses. The whole reference of thought comes to be what somebody asserts, not what actually is." Even if journalism claims the ethic of objectivity, how do we know what they're saying is true? wo don't know, we can't.
so, that's why we don't accept the ethic of objectivity. there is no way of knowing what is true.
with that perspective, let's look at an article i found in the washington post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/01/AR200512...
first of all, this article was written differently earlier today. i saved the original article to my favorites and when i tried to access it a few minutes ago, the page was unavailable. "weird" i thought, so i went back to the WP's homepage and clicked on what i thought was the same article about bush and world aids day. well, the headline changed from what it was earlier today and though many of the same facts were in the new article, a lot had changed. the beginning of the article describes the African family that sat behind bush during his speech. the original article didn't mention them much, but showed an image of them. the new article described the image rather than showing it. In the end of the original article, two paragraphs are given that propose kind of accusation of not meeting goals set and not realistically being able to do so. i now wish i would have copied the text. anyhow, this new article has a half page more text in it and smoothes down the initial accusation to a simple statement: "Bush agreed with leaders of the other highly industrialized nations to work toward "universal access to treatment" for the world's AIDS patients by 2010 -- an even taller order than the 3 by 5 target or PEPFAR's goals." and this statement falls somewhere in the middle of a lot of boring numbers and dollar signs.
that's enough to make me radically uncertain.

In the postmodern era, journalists are beginnning to embrace radical uncertainty as they report the news to the public. Reporters rely less on the presentation of both accounts of a story due to an increased lack of trust of the story's sources. Radical uncertainty operates on the assumption that no news can be true and nothing is objective. This movement of distrust is gaining momentum as the public become more skeptical of big businesses, the government, and their efforts to gain favorable media coverage.

PRwatch.com, a forum provided by the journal PR Watch, saw a lot of activity yesterday after a particular LA Times article. PRwatch describes itself as follows (which I found indicative of the current movement). "PR Watch, a quarterly publication of the Center for Media & Democracy, is dedicated to investigative reporting on the public relations industry. It serves citizens, journalists and researchers seeking to recognize and combat manipulative and misleading PR practices. It specializes in blowing the lid off today's multi-billion dollar propaganda-for-hire industry, naming names and revealing how public relations wizards concoct and spin the news, organize phony 'grassroots' front groups, spy on citizens, and conspire with lobbyists and politicians to thwart democracy. We expose the hidden activities of secretive, little-known mega-firms such as Hill & Knowlton, Burson-Marsteller and Ketchum PR--the "invisible men" who control our political debates and public opinion, twisting reality and protecting the powerful from scrutiny."

The LA Times story, "U.S. Military Covertly Pays to Run Stories in Iraqi Press" details how the U.S. military secretly paid Iraqi newsmedia to publish stories by American troops to boost the image of the current occupation. From the article,

"Many of the articles are presented in the Iraqi press as unbiased news accounts
written and reported by independent journalists. The stories trumpet the work of U.S.
and Iraqi troops, denounce insurgents and tout U.S.-led efforts to rebuild the country."

Now there's a great example of PR gone bad as well as the increased public scrutiny of the news. The reporters also critique the U.S. government, although subtlely.
The LA Times reports:

"The military's effort to disseminate propaganda in the Iraqi media is taking place even
as U.S. officials are pledging to promote democratic principles, political transparency
and freedom of speech in a country emerging from decades of dictatorship and
corruption. "

Another example of their critique:

"The arrangement with Lincoln Group is evidence of how far the Pentagon has moved
to blur the traditional boundaries between military public affairs — the dissemination
of factual information to the media — and psychological and information operations,
which use propaganda and sometimes misleading information to advance the
objectives of a military campaign."

And no, this is not a column.

If you'd like to check out the article itself, here's the link:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-fg-infowar30nov30,1,4797092....

It will be interesting to watch how the military tries to clean up this mess. One of the foremost principles taught at the Communications school at UT is that PR should always be honest and reflect the truth. When PR first emerged, this was not the case (i.e. Barnum & Bailey's circus and their bearded lady, etc.) The new trend in teaching is also evident of PR's own PR problem.

Even with increased scrutiny, however, I still maintain that PR is a necessary evil and will continue. Somebody's gotta do it.

It's in today's Daily Texan, but in case you threw out your copy: http://news.findlaw.com/ap/o/55/11-29-2005/9345003e34b5c7dd.html

I think that this uncertainty - especially the invisible greedy forces or the indiscernable complexities that seem to perpetuate so many ills - has elicited an emotional response that basically combines storytelling with statistics to draw attention to an issue. I would like to say that it has led to an activist response, which is obviously far from objective, but I really couldn't find anything resembling that in at least the article I read. I think that an activist response is appropriate because I think that the system is inherently biased and unfair to the citizen due to all the stuff McChesney and Nichols wrote about, that this kind of really trying to draw connections to what is really happening in any given issue and the possible actions the public can take is necessary. I know some people have really strong reactions against Schlosser's Fast Food Nation, but I think he did a fanstastic job of using story and stats/facts to bring home what is really happening in the food industry, as well as to get people to understand what kind of actions on their part that can help. It was as empowering as it was depressing.

Back to the mainstream AP article. The article, on children with AIDS in Africa, begins: "Four years ago, Refilwe sat in a hospital room watching over her tiny AIDS-wasted baby daughter and prepared for the end."

It ends: "With the help of a young aunt, Letsebe is now determined to get Mary all of her drugs on time. As she waited patiently to collect the girl's monthly supply of medicine, she said, "I want Mary to grow like any child."

In between there are plenty of numbers and science that attempt to explain the issue beyond these stories, but truthfully I couldn't find anything that might hint at any possible solution with which the reader could align or find actions. Besides the emotion and the articulated problem, there isn't much else there. It's a shame, because I know there is a lot going on there.

Ironically, my first response to the prompt was to question the claim of a 'postmodern' era in media. Something that is this intangible is difficult at best to dissect. I think the basis of postmodern uncertainty lies in the sheer amount of information we recieve through mainstream media. I know for a fact, just by watching the news this evening, that 16 people were arrested at Bull Creek Park in a sex sting, 2 sailors were shot in Dallas, and that two men were found dead in a house in North Austin. As people with a self-centered perspective, we do question that so much goes on that is outside of our direct observation. Tell a friend of a new story that they happened to observe, and likely the first response is something like "I saw that!", which basically means, "I witnessed the event, therefore I am fully convinced that it did occur."