I like this trend of taking neutral positions that seems to be picking up again, although the timing for this doesn't look good.
Just as how universities are starting to adopt neutrality, so should news outlets.
Just as how universities are starting to adopt neutrality, so should news outlets.
Is the superiority of phonics based literacy approaches "neutral" or criticism of teachers unions? If a economics professors research indicates that, say, supply-side economics doesn't work under current circumstances, is it "neutral" for her to tell her class that? If a law professor thinks that judges only make ad hoc arguments to achieve whatever ends they desire, can they teach their class legal nihilism?
"Neutral" is the sort of thing that someone who has never actually tried to teach or inform can think is reasonable, until you actually try and do it and realize that there are people out there who strongly want to contest whether the earth is round, and that either you throw up your hands and accept epistemological nihilism or you accept that you have to pick sides, and try and do a good job of picking the right sides.
It does not mean that professors are not allowed to talk about disagreeable things that are required for teaching the subject. If anything, it makes it easier for them to do so, as they can teach whatever is necessary to produce well-functioning members of society.
Eg you don't need to endorse a specific candidate to fulfill your duty of teaching students. You don't need to avoid talking about research that runs counter to the organization's politics. You don't need to openly pick sides on protests besides advocating for enough civilty to allow your institution to keep operating, and so on. I'm fairly certain that a good portion of the neutrality statements from universities have been coming from the difficult ideological situation presented by the flaring up of the Israel-Gaza conflict, where picking sides opens them up to either being islamophobes or antisemites.
I'm not really sure what you're getting at with the tension about creationism as part of science education. In my schooling the early science education often covered the history of the topic, which would inevitably talk about the local religious ideas, working it's way through them, sometimes even with brief readings of some associated stories, through to major discoveries that provided the evidence for the modern consensus. That's just part of providing a comprehensive education and connecting it to the culture kids are exposed to?
If you are referring to traditional cultures, they have creation myths which are better suited for social sciences classes.
Showing both sides of the debate is itself a worse form of indoctrination. Haha, look at how creationism is pseudoscience! Now you will be tested on the reasons why. No, let's just not platform propaganda as if it deserved any fair footing in good-faith context of discourse.
I was a volunteer at a US science museum that received some taxpayer funding back in the mid-aughts when "Scientific Creationism" was still a thing. Our museum had (and still has) an institutional commitment to the scientific consensus on the age of the universe and earth. If we had caught a volunteer providing visitors with creationism they would have been asked to hand in their badge and not work any more shifts, because that was our institutional position and everyone had to respect that.
Trying to throw that away because of Israel-Palestine is much more threatening to the value of truth than it helps it.
And being perfectly neutral is not possible, no.
I.e. it is better if the puppets think they are living in a fair democracy, since they might act like they do, decreasing the power of the puppet masters. The opposite is concepts like the series "House of cards", that instruct people to play the game and be "political".
I define "neutral" as loosely "trying to not be biased".
Like, for example, pretending until it became way over the top too embarrassing that the president is mentally fit for another 4 year of any work, is a good example of being "political" about it.
Gaslighting that backfired badly.
So I think either your definition is wrong or your goal of neutrality is wrong.
I don't think that is your point, but treating creationism as a science would rather quickly disprove it? Like Dowsing rods or whatever.
If God descended from heaven (lets just pretend he did, not a powerful alien or whatever) and showed you how he creationisted everything, then it would be 'biased' to pretend it didn't happen. But I guess you could still believe it is fake, as long as the facts are considered in some way, without being biased.
But the issue of whether science class was "biased" against creationism- and whether it should neutrally teach both sides in public schools, museums, etc.- was a huge political argument in the US for decades, resulting in many legal battles- with Justice Scalia and Chief Justice Rehnquist voting that it should be taught in public school science class (Edwards v. Aguillard, 1987, decided 7-2 against creationism). Given the current makeup of the Court - where Scalia's positions have far more clout than they did then- I hesitate to see where a new case would end up.
To just wave that away because you want the world to be different is avoiding how the world actually works. It would be nice if organizations could be "neutral" on things you disagree with them about and biased on things you agree with them about, but unfortunately people disagree with you, and they get a vote too.
Far more important to spreading the truth to let organizations have bias, and then build good institutions that achieve positions closer to the truth, and those institutions get respected for being closer to the truth, and lose respect for being further from the truth.
1: The Omphalos Argument, the God of Abraham could have made the entire universe 6000 years ago with an appearance of age, with light from distant galaxies already in flight towards the Earth, with radioactive isotope ratios consistent with a 13.7 billion year old universe and a 4.54 billion year old Earth, for His own purposes.
Omphalos is Greek for navel, and the name comes from a medieval argument over whether Adam and Eve had bellybuttons: they would not have had one naturally, obviously, due to their special creation, but then they would not be like all other humans, and they are supposed to be. But if they did have them was God lying about their past? This is why most artists of the time carefully placed some cover where the bellybutton would be, to stay neutral in this argument.
In that sense, I agree with you.
But you can interpret neutral more as not attempting to influence. In that sense, it does not mean the result will be neutral, but that you tried to be. Neutrality is an effort, like trying to be kind to others, or to be positive. It's an attempt at curbing bias. And I think that's something you'd want journalists to practice. Just like it's beneficial to have people try to be kind and positive, even if it's impossible for them to truly be at all times and to the most extent, it does make the world a better place still when people try.
Now, if you tried to read news, and wanted to form your own opinion, would you rather read the one from someone purposely siding with one side, and specifically choosing their words and what to say in a conscious effort to bring you over to their position? Or would you rather read the one from someone attempting to be impartial, disclosing their bias from the start so you can weigh it in, attempting to show the arguments against theirs, as well as their own, spend some time to discuss the other viewpoint, have quotes from both sides, etc.
Journalism and journalists are not supposed to be neutral, but impartial.
Ethics are pretty universal.
I at least, am out of patience for sophistry as if this is just a normal and innocent difference of perspective.
Anyone who has taken a basic philosophy or ethics class or read more than the summary page of their history books knows this is not even remotely true
This is said by both sides, it is equally stupid every time.
If ethics are pretty universal, how is it that one party wants no abortions at all and thinks any abortion that isn't absolutely medically necessary is evil and the other party wants abortions right up until viable birth and thinks that anything less than that is evil?
Especially when considering that most of the world is somewhere in between, where abortions are legal for a few weeks and then illegal unless absolutely necessary.
You’ve got the position of the other party wrong as well, but I’m not going to even bother correcting that because if you don’t find the above completely vile there’s no helping you.
You are either with us, or against us.
I agree that it would be nice if news outlets tried to always be neutral, but a lot of TV news channels in the US would have almost nothing to say if you stopped their opinion reporting.
I don't disagree with some of the things that blog post is saying, but excluding the opinions on the Washington Post home page, where is the is outright bullshit or propaganda? I hear the opinion often but I don't see it when I go to a newspaper.
Now if you were to go to the home page of reddit or twitter there's clearly tons of propaganda.
The current headline on the Washington post is talking about Israeli strikes in Iran.
Is that the most immediate event pertaining to Israel? Probably. Is that the most important recent event pertaining to Israel? Well, that depends, doesn’t it?
However, with video and websites, it is very easy to mix editor opinion with news. People tuning into a news channel mid-report don't necessarily know they're listening to just an opinion, and same goes for people reading the headline from an embed or URL without clicking through to the page.
Another thing I often notice is that opinion pieces get to play more loose with the facts. They can say completely unsubstantiated things or get actual facts wrong, but still say something as if it had the credibility of the organization. Yet if the backlash gets too strong they get to deflect by arguing that it was just an opinion and not meant to reflect on the organization.
The current state of opinion pieces is like running a blog about my research and getting important things wrong there, then expecting people to assume that my actual research publications are accurate.
Your definition of neutral appears to be “shut up” and is creepily authoritarian.
To get some distance, imagine being neutral to every candidates during Russia's last elections, and refusing to publish well researched and argumented opinions people have about the leading candidate.
The US seems really unstable right now. It is like a ever growing political cacophony. And blaming the "other side" for a mutual problem seems silly for an external observer.
The bad faith tone is making the caricatures real by moving people further from each other and entrenching distinctive extremes as ingroup markers.
E.g. I feel that during the pandemic supporters of the former president believed the caricatures of his policy on the matter, making it a thing.
Trying to keep a "the truth is in the middle" attitude is unethical.
I think the main issue becomes "bad faith", and we're back to the credibility issue. IMHO discourse should be fact based, and arguments should be researched. If you're calling your opponent names, show the receipt and not vague gesturing at what you think reality is.
Blaming the other side should be fine, as long as you can defend that position.
It is illogical too. In a simple question of "little" and "much" the truth could be "even smaller" and "way bigger than much".
> I think the main issue becomes "bad faith"
Ye I think I agree here about it being the main concern. Bad faith accusation, debates etc seem to radicalize the supporters of the accused. I think you make the caricature real at some point when supporters start to believe the misconception.
The population already struggles with determining fact from fiction. Taking away the power from journalists because a _billionaire_ wants to ensure his wealth remains high.