RE: Is Unbiased Journalism Still Possible?
[as one might have guessed: English below]
Ist unverzerrter Journalismus (noch) möglich? Nein, das ist er nicht, auch nicht rein theoretisch. Unverzerrter Journalimus, unverfälschte Information, ist eine 'Idee'. Eine solche 'Idee' ist das, war für die Navigatoren bestimmte Sterne sind: Orientierungshilfen, aber nicht das erreichbare Ziel. (Mein Verglich hinkt, denn niemand will zum Polarstern, jedenfalls noch nicht.) Eine 'Idee' wird handlungsleitend, wenn an sie geglaubt wird, wenn darauf vertraut wird, dass man sich ihr annähern kann. Sie muss nicht selbst möglich und erreichbar sein.
Daher ist meine Frage an mich: Mit welchen Mitteln kann ich der 'Idee' näher kommen? Was kann ich beitragen, um unverzerrten Journalismus etwas mehr wirklich werden zu lassen, auch ohne ihn je erreichen zu können? Eines der (wenn auch vielleicht schwachen, vielleicht aber gar nicht so sehr schwachen) Mittel, die ich habe, wenn ich weder Journalist noch Verleger bin, auch nicht Gesetzgeber oder Geldgeber, besteht darin: die 'Idee' von freier Kommunikation, von unverfälschter Information, von unverzerrtem Journalismus GEGEN die wahrnehmbare Realität festzuhalten und nicht zu resignieren: so ist es eben, die Welt ist schlecht, für Geld ist alles zu haben, Journalismus ist gekauft. Sondern sich tatsächlich - wie du und @lightcaptured es beschreiben - hinzusetzen und zu prüfen, wie nahe oder wie entfernt die aktuellen Nachrichten-Shows wohl sind bezüglich meiner 'Idee' von unverzerrtem Journalismus.
Denn wenn ich angesichts der Wahrnehmung die 'Idee' aufgebe, dann mache ich selbst mich zum Opfer. Halte ich die 'Idee' aber als meinen Leitstern fest, dann begleitet sie mich auch bei der Orientierung in sogenannten 'alternativen Medien', denn auch dort benötige ich dringend kritischen Abstand.
Is unbiased journalism (still) possible? No, it is not, not even in theory. Unbiased journalism, unadulterated information, is an “idea”. Such an “idea” is what certain stars are to navigators: aids to orientation, but not the achievable goal. (My comparison is flawed, because no one wants to go to the North Star, at least not yet.) An “idea” guides action when it is believed in, when it is trusted that it can be approached. It does not have to be possible and achievable in itself.
So my question to myself is: How can I get closer to the “idea”? What can I contribute to make unbiased journalism a little more real, even without ever being able to achieve it? One of the means (perhaps weak, but perhaps not so weak) that I have, even though I am neither a journalist nor a publisher, nor a legislator or a financier, is to hold on to the “idea” of free communication, of unadulterated information, of unbiased journalism AGAINST the perceived reality and not to give up: that's just the way it is, the world is bad, everything can be bought for money, journalism is bought. Instead, as you and @lightcaptured describe, actually sit down and examine how close or how far away the current news shows are from my “idea” of unbiased journalism.
Because if I abandon the “idea” in the face of perception, then I make myself a victim. But if I hold on to the “idea” as my guiding star, then it also helps me to find my orientation in so-called “alternative media”, because there too I urgently need critical distance.
Translated with DeepL, proof-read by the author
That is an excellent question. Keep asking them questions! :)
Another question I am asking myself is would I willingly accept some bias if the info that is poured upon us is more useful? Because it all feels not only heavily biased but following a strict agenda, approved by a handful of those in power.
Six-seven years ago I decided I am not paying anymore for cable/satellite TV. In Bulgaria, where I currently live, there are 6 channels that are transmitted for free, three state-owned and three private channels, a small antenna and a digital decoder are enough (and all modern TV sets have that decoder already). I feel the channel owners have to pay me to watch the tons of BS and advertisements instead :)
Me, I do not watch TV since several years. (some exceptions when I was guest of some friends).
A few weeks ago, I had to stay in a hotel and was curious to watch the evening news. Horrible. Not the contents (that in some regards too) but the presentation: fragments of fragments.... One could say: those who watch regularly or who watch the feature broadcasts are pre-informed and can deal with such fragments as if they were some updates. But this would only be a very small part of the truth about news telling.
Not watching the news keeps the doctor away, in a bit, hehe ;)
I am very close to this as well, but still, sometimes there is 1% useful information, they announce bigger law changes, for instance the latest here is that the toll cameras now track average speed on some major roads.
The authorities said during the first two hours more than 1500 fines have been issued...
I agree with you, the truth of those news always has an angle ;)
Have a great afternoon! :)
;-))
I appreciate how you framed unbiased journalism as an “idea” rather than a goal to be reached.
Hahaha
Your North Star analogy is quite interesting — I like the idea of holding on to something we may never fully reach but still need as orientation. For me, though, unbiased journalism feels less like a distant star and more like a spectrum. Some reporting will always lean one way or another, but there are moments when you can tell an honest effort was made to stay closer to balance.
So yeah, that’s where I feel our role as readers comes in. If we give up on the idea, then we accept whatever’s served to us. But if we keep questioning, comparing, and noticing those shades of bias, we don’t let ourselves be passive consumers. Even if we never get “pure” journalism, the act of holding media accountable — even in small ways — keeps that guiding star from disappearing altogether.
🤞🤞🤞
Very well said!