Is there any such thing as media objectivity?I'm a blogger and I'm not objective. I usually report an issue and then offer my perspective. I'm not really reporting the news. I'm commenting on the news.
Should the NYTimes be considered the same as just an opionated blog, or should they be held to a higher level of objectivity?
Case in point. Bill Clinton is now trying to claim that he was anti-war, as was his wife, from the beginning. But the facts are far less convincing. Covering this story, the
NYTimes chose a quote from a 2004 Time article that goes, "I would not have done it until after
Hans Blix finished the job,” referring to the weapons inspections there before the war.
So, maybe he did or did not support the war according to that article. The NYTimes is questioning Bill on this point, but is it objectively reporting the facts?
There are other quotes in the
same article cited by the NYTimes that offer a much more convincing perspective. "That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for. So I thought the President had an absolute responsibility to go to the U.N. and say, "Look, guys, after 9/11, you have got to demand that Saddam Hussein lets us finish the inspection process." You couldn't responsibly ignore [the possibility that] a tyrant had these stocks. I never really thought he'd [use them]. What I was far more worried about was that he'd sell this stuff or give it away. .........So that's why I thought Bush did the right thing to go back. When you're the President, and your country has just been through what we had, you want everything to be accounted for............"
Ultimately, Bill claimed he didn't agree with the "timing of the attack", not the attack itself.
That certainly sounds much more supportive of the Bush's position, and it also sounds far from anti-War. So, why did the NYTimes choose the soft quote? Why not call Bill out on this? To protect Hillary Clinton?
Rate the NYTimes: Should they be held to a higher standard of objectivity?Labels: life, politics