Nota bene: Updates will be posted as the media jumps on
this. I am blogging this as it is unfolding.
On the class
blog, I will try to keep my personal religious beliefs out of this. It is hard
to find an appropriately controversial subject to analyze without it having any
sort of personal impact.
So what we have here
is a holy way. Literally. The Vanderbilt administration has placed rules on the
student population that a faith-based organization cannot pick their leaders
based on faith. While different denominations of Christians, Muslims, Jews,
Buddhists, and other don’t normally agree, they’ve seemed to come to a strong
unity on this issue.
But what will the
media say? As this unfolds, we will discuss the handling especially by
mainstream media sources that cater to the left and to the right. God help us
when Glen Beck gets ahold of this, and when Nancy Grace states her case.
Interesting post; However, as we pointed out in class today objectivity is key in discussing or approaching issues. I would suggest remembering this when you are posting on this blog. I understand you may feel disgruntled by Glen Beck or Nancy Grace, however this is one of the main things that I find very exasperating. The left has just as many outlandish commentators, just as the right has just as many logical commentators, or ones who fit your standards of "logical". I just believe that in order to make a change, you must commit yourself to your beliefs in action and expectations, otherwise you find yourself in the same roles as our media personalities.
ReplyDeleteWe also spoke of the polarized pluralist and the democratic corporatist models and how unabashedly they lack objectivity, yet still serve-- sometimes better than our own system, which they call "naieve"-- the public. Comment-based journalism, which is the model of blogging in the first place, gives the democratic corporatist model an edge. That edge is high readership-- over 70% to our nearly 20%.
ReplyDeleteWe also talked about journalism as a marketplace, wherein you read what you want and don't read what you don't like. Frankly, if you are so exasperated by my posts, you are under no obligation-- state or otherwise-- to read them.
I really do not for the life of me see how youre statements are applicable when you are perpetuating the media that you stand to be against. That is all that I am stating. "Be the change you wish to see." Being argumentative and oppositional to everything that you write or respond to will neither gain you friends, allies, or respect. I read your posts because they garner merit, my comment was in response to how I thought you could improve your argument and the scope of your post. If you wish to dismiss my comments and respond in such a way as you did then that is your decision. However, the class assignment is designed for us to read each others posts, comment, and offer suggestions on the argument at hand. That is something that is required and obliged of me.
ReplyDeleteI do not understand what you mean by "the media I stand against."
ReplyDeleteI write as a democratic corporatist or a polarized pluralist, and hold nothing against either system. Those models are comment-based and claim no objectivity: I claim no objectivity. The very nature of blogging lends itself to comment-based journalism, and excludes itself from events-based.
What I do have a problem with is a news source calling itself objective without attempting to be so. The problem with the Liberal model is that it is so confused concerning its purpose. Muckraking and social responsibility are clearly not objective, and yet our journalists elevate these two as honorable. Understand, I do not say that these are not honorable. But the American media cannot call itself objective while it is muckraking. Did Sinclair call "The Jungle" objective? Certainly not. His honesty concerning that granted him ethos. Additionally, a journalist cannot fulfill his or her social responsibility if (s)he is being objective. I do not know the solution to this. As of yet, I can only trace the silhouette of the problem. It is my sincere hope that, as the class goes on, I will be able to come up with a few viable solutions.
Lastly, and as a side note, I deeply appreciate what you said about why you read my posts, and I do not dismiss your comments. Unfortunately, I do not write to gain friends or allies and I understand with sincere and bitter regret that I will not have many among the class. I write to blaze a new journalistic trail and find where it leads by trial and error. I have been in journalism for years at the local, state, and international levels. I have practiced objectivity with severe but effective restraint for about a fifth of my life. This is my first opportunity for comment-based journalism that unabashedly lacks objectivity. I make no concessions on that front, and will say now and for the record: I am not objective or planning to be objective on this blog. I will also say that I am not perfect, and the longer I blaze this trail, the more distinct my ideas, arguments, and opinions will become. Please continue to bear with me.