What happens when you ignore "objective reality"
You may recall my little spat with Atlanta Progressive News' Matthew Cardinale last November over a misleading story he wrote about Kasim Reed's representation of the Cracker Barrel restaurant chain. In the story, Cardinale implied that Reed currently represented Cracker Barrel (my review of the docket showed he withdrew from the case in 2001 when he was still a young associate) and that he was defending Cracker Barrel against race discrimination claims brought by the NAACP (in fact it was a Fair Labor Standards Act case in which the NAACP filed an amicus brief). It took me all of half an hour reviewing the federal court's PACER docket to find that his story was full of misleading implications and omitted context. So, I called him a lazy biased fucking douchebag, which apparently offended his delicate sensibilities.
But Cardinale is SO committed to his irresponsibly slanted form of yellow journalism masquerading as progressive thought that he just fired one of APN's writers for insisting on a pursuit of "objective reality" (which apparently is pretty unwelcome at APN.) Ignoring objective reality in favor of a progressive slant is what allows Cardinale to write a story all about how Cracker Barrel is a big old racist company and Kasim Reed defends them in cases brought by the NAACP, while leaving out that this one case happened 9 years ago, had nothing to do with allegations of race discrimination, and the NAACP only played a tangential role. It also means that the stories coming out of APN must be viewed with an extremely critical eye, because there is no telling what facts have been emphasized or omitted depending on whether they do or do not support Cardinale's progressive vision.
I've long had concerns about APN's ethical integrity, only some of which I have publicly voiced on this blog. (Having friends in politics and journalism, and not wanting to throw stones without being sure *I* had a fully-sourced understanding of "objective reality" has caused me to hold my tongue when perhaps I shouldn't have.) The fact that Cardinale would and did fire a reporter for wanting to find the truth in a story does nothing to ease my concerns. Instead, it tells me exactly how it was possible to justify to himself the story he decided to tell about Kasim Reed last fall. Take any "news" reported by APN from this point forward with a massive heaping dose of salt...for we now know the rules of the game they are playing, and "objective reality" is not their goal.
2 comments:
Ms. Wara Clara,
I won't dwell on your inaccurate statements re- the Reed/Cracker barrel case because that's old news.
All I can say is that if you're shocked today that our editorial policy is to take a progressive position, and that we maintain that objectivity doesn't exist, then you can only blame yourself for not paying attention.
Basic information has been on our FAQs page since our founding in November 2005. The page was updated in 2008, but the following information was not affected:
http://atlantaprogressivenews.com/extras/faqs.html
####
What is progressive news?
Progressive news is news that brings us closer to universal health care, living wages, affordable housing, peace, a healthy environment, and voting systems we can trust.
Is Atlanta Progressive News objective?
We provide news of concern to working families, and therefore, our writing is geared toward a specific audience. Fortunately, our audience--working families--comprises a majority of people in the United States who are largely ignored by corporate media sources.
We believe there is no such thing as objective news. Typically, mainstream media presents itself as objective but is actually skewed towards promoting the corporate agenda of the ultra-wealthy.
APN, on the other hand, does not pretend to be objective. We believe that our news coverage is fair and that our progressive principles are fair. We aim when possible to give voice to all sides, but aim to provide something different than what is already provided by corporate sources.
####
I should add that whenever questions have been raised about our "objectivity," we have never claimed to be objective and we have refered people back to our mission over and over again.
Some people are upset because we don't fit into their pre-established schema for what news is or should be. Well, that's perfectly all right. We have ALWAYS been transparent about our editorial policies. And I think as long as we're transparent, consistent, and principled, it's up to the reader whether to keep reading.
Of course I'm not shocked you take a progressive position. I'm shocked you believe that position can be or should be disconnected from fact-based reality.
Post a Comment