"DON'T BLAME THE MEDIA: IT CAN BE OBJECTIVE"

      Media has been the subject of harsh criticism for as long as most people can remember. There's no stopping such condemnation especially now as horrific events are also escalating. To the point, broadcast news ( along with Social Media) is now being blamed for inciting extremist action from both individuals and groups alike. No doubt, such behavior is a broad-ranging one that has many diverse perspectives, deserving comprehensive examination. 

     However, such examination baits this question: where do we even start to assess TV news? How can we determine if TV is accountable for incitement? ( More to the point, can it ever be held responsible?)  But that's another subject altogether.

     Journalist Margaret Sullivan's recent book, "Newsroom Confidential," addresses one possible way of testing TV news's responsibility for incitement although Ms. Sullivan is considering the nature of "objectivity" in the news, not its culpability Thus, Ms. Sullivan believes that "fairness" does not mean balance, neutrality, false equivalence or presenting both sides of an argument.

     Instead, and according to this particular critic's frame of reference, objectivity suggests that the narrative being covered is a truthful one.  

     Here is an example of how truth was established by objectivity on the "The Rachel Maddow Show" ( MSNBC ) last week.  The program featured a "Breaking News" story about an attack on a North Carolina power station: Ms. Maddow's introduction observed that no one claimed responsibility and that information was scarce about the event.

     The coverage progressed by using various techniques common to similar subject matter, all of them building the case for "fairness." Consider Clarification devices, like the utilization of both a map demonstrating the physical area and video indicating workers standing around the power station, visuals that were not dramatic or exaggerated. Moreover, text and quotes from 'The Wall Street Journal, '' which Ms. Maddow read as a voice-over, contributed to "fairness," by contrasting the conservative WSJ with the liberal MSNBC. 

     Conversely, comparisons were used by detailing attacks on power stations in the past, including one in California ( 2013) and one this February. A pattern was found among the three events, lending credibility to the idea that the stories were believable. 

     However, the most pervasive aspect of objectivity in the coverage was Ms. Maddow's closing commentary when she stated that "No one was arrested for the North Carolina attack. They got away with it."  It was a repeat of her objective reaction in the story's beginning.

     There were no interviews with people declaring their opinions, no FBI members suggesting that terrorists were responsible, no additional facts that had been discovered at the last minute.

"The Rachel Maddow Show"  couldn't get more objective than that.