Liverpool FC Forum

[Leonmc0708]

(as per the exclusive by Johnny Mac from RAOTL http://forum.raotl.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=65655):

.... Tony Barrett.

Anyone who has not read the great stuff by Mr Barrett, let me tell you it is more than fully deserved.

Gladly we can all read the Echo's Liverpool section again after it having been rescued from Dave "Did I tell you I was related to Dixie Dean" Prentice.

[ivor_the_injun]

Great news - fully deserved, and bound to be a very popular appointment.

Congratulations Tony!

[Wilhelmsson]

Would it not be better if the Echo hired someone with a neutral viewpoint of the football club, who will discuss matters without an ounce of bias in the midst of the articles?

[LFC2007]

Well in Tony.

To Wilhelmsson's comment:

No, having someone who is very close to the club is a journalistic advantage.

I wouldn't say the guy is biased, he just adds perspective to his views.

[Wilhelmsson]

I shall look forward to reading much more from him then and this word perspective, what is it that you speak of?

[red37]

Thank f**k for that. Well deserved.

[Bad Bob]

I shall look forward to reading much more from him then and this word perspective, what is it that you speak of?

I can never decide if you are being serious or if you are just taking the p!ss with every post you make. 

Assuming it's the former for a moment and addressing your question about hiring someone "without an ounce of bias" for the Echo job, I'd like to humbly suggest that, in journalism, politics, academia, the court system, message board posting--indeed, in any arena of discourse you'd care to name--there has never been and there never will be anyone who does not present their views "without an ounce of bias".  Complete and total objectivity is a complete and total myth.  It can't happen and to expect that it should is, IMHO, naive.

[Leonmc0708]

I shall look forward to reading much more from him then and this word perspective, what is it that you speak of?

I can never decide if you are being serious or if you are just taking the p!ss with every post you make. 

Assuming it's the former for a moment and addressing your question about hiring someone "without an ounce of bias" for the Echo job, I'd like to humbly suggest that, in journalism, politics, academia, the court system, message board posting--indeed, in any arena of discourse you'd care to name--there has never been and there never will be anyone who does not present their views "without an ounce of bias".  Complete and total objectivity is a complete and total myth.  It can't happen and to expect that it should is, IMHO, naive.

The person who types the details of a court case (sat at the front typing away) does so without bias.

[Sabre]

I don't know in Wilhemsson's case, but in these last 15 years, I've learnt that when many people say "unbiased and neutral" they actually mean "opinions that match mine"

Certainly what I can read from London about this club I don't consider it neutral. Of course, in a local paper that gives info about the local club it's inevitable to have some bias, as many of that journos are fans, and you like it or not, that can be noticed when you write.

A journo from London who supports Tottenham will have his bias aswell, he likes it or not. Human nature and Unbiased attitude is somthing difficult to match often.

[Bad Bob]

I shall look forward to reading much more from him then and this word perspective, what is it that you speak of?

I can never decide if you are being serious or if you are just taking the p!ss with every post you make. 

Assuming it's the former for a moment and addressing your question about hiring someone "without an ounce of bias" for the Echo job, I'd like to humbly suggest that, in journalism, politics, academia, the court system, message board posting--indeed, in any arena of discourse you'd care to name--there has never been and there never will be anyone who does not present their views "without an ounce of bias".  Complete and total objectivity is a complete and total myth.  It can't happen and to expect that it should is, IMHO, naive.

The person who types the details of a court case (sat at the front typing away) does so without bias.

You mean "stenography", mate?

Interesting you should bring that up, as there is a big debate in the US at the moment regarding the term as it is applied to the media.  Check out Leon with his finger on the pulse of critical media studies in the U.S.!

The issue is that many people feel that journalists have become virtual 'stenographers' for the right-wing powers that be: dutifully recording the soundbites of Republican politicians and business leaders with no commentary whatsoever on the nature and truthfullness of the material they're writing down.

One journalist put it this way:

"There are not two equal sides to every story, and good reporting is more than just stenography. Neither is anybody 'objective.'  What most reporters and editors try to do is make a principled effort to be fair...they bend over backwards to try to be fair, both to individuals and to ideas."

The Link

Now, covering Liverpool might not seem as high stakes as, say, keeping George Bush honest but, as we well know, there are numerous debates, criticisms, rumours and conspiracy theories that swirl around the team on a daily basis and a good reporter will have to decide just how he is going to present these issues to readers.  So, IMO, objectivity is impossible and we wouldn't want it anyway (every story would be a tedious effort to give all viewpoints on a topic).  If Barrett, like Bascombe before him, does his best to be fair while still being insightful, I'll be happy.

[Wilhelmsson]

I can never decide if you are being serious or if you are just taking the p!ss with every post you make. 

Assuming it's the former for a moment and addressing your question about hiring someone "without an ounce of bias" for the Echo job, I'd like to humbly suggest that, in journalism, politics, academia, the court system, message board posting--indeed, in any arena of discourse you'd care to name--there has never been and there never will be anyone who does not present their views "without an ounce of bias".  Complete and total objectivity is a complete and total myth.  It can't happen and to expect that it should is, IMHO, naive.

I can assure you, I’m most sincere with my posts. You are probably correct, but I’d like to see more constructive criticism of the team when needed and justified instead of this always look on the bright side of life.

It's not that such a stance is bad before you or anyone else jumps on my back, it's just not always what I want to read.

I read the echo website quite regularly and I often wonder if Phil Thompson is the Editor because Liverpool could be beaten 5-0 at home by Fulham and the Echo will find a reason or reason to be upbeat.

[Lando_Griffin]

I can never decide if you are being serious or if you are just taking the p!ss with every post you make. 

Assuming it's the former for a moment and addressing your question about hiring someone "without an ounce of bias" for the Echo job, I'd like to humbly suggest that, in journalism, politics, academia, the court system, message board posting--indeed, in any arena of discourse you'd care to name--there has never been and there never will be anyone who does not present their views "without an ounce of bias".  Complete and total objectivity is a complete and total myth.  It can't happen and to expect that it should is, IMHO, naive.

I can assure you, I’m most sincere with my posts. You are probably correct, but I’d like to see more constructive criticism of the team when needed and justified instead of this always look on the bright side of life.

It's not that such a stance is bad before you or anyone else jumps on my back, it's just not always what I want to read.

I read the echo website quite regularly and I often wonder if Phil Thompson is the Editor because Liverpool could be beaten 5-0 at home by Fulham and the Echo will find a reason or reason to be upbeat.

But if they added to the depression, then no-one would buy their papers, save for the t*ssers who actually WANT Rafa to go.

[redtrader74]

I shall look forward to reading much more from him then and this word perspective, what is it that you speak of?

I can never decide if you are being serious or if you are just taking the p!ss with every post you make. 

Assuming it's the former for a moment and addressing your question about hiring someone "without an ounce of bias" for the Echo job, I'd like to humbly suggest that, in journalism, politics, academia, the court system, message board posting--indeed, in any arena of discourse you'd care to name--there has never been and there never will be anyone who does not present their views "without an ounce of bias".  Complete and total objectivity is a complete and total myth.  It can't happen and to expect that it should is, IMHO, naive.

The person who types the details of a court case (sat at the front typing away) does so without bias.

Been to court a few times Leon? 

[red37]

Kin ell. Never mind clocking the stenographer...my eyes were usually focussed (pleadingly) on the jury!    Long time ago of course!

[LFC2007]

Interesting you should bring that up, as there is a big debate in the US at the moment regarding the term as it is applied to the media.  Check out Leon with his finger on the pulse of critical media studies in the U.S.!

journalists have become virtual 'stenographers' for the right-wing powers that be: dutifully recording the soundbites of Republican politicians and business leaders with no commentary whatsoever on the nature and truthfullness of the material they're writing down.

One journalist put it this way:

"There are not two equal sides to every story, and good reporting is more than just stenography. Neither is anybody 'objective.'  What most reporters and editors try to do is make a principled effort to be fair...they bend over backwards to try to be fair, both to individuals and to ideas."

The Link

I know it's off topic slightly but I know what you're referring to. I've heard the phrase 'United States of Stenography' used quite a few times.

It's a highly debatable issue, however, those 'right wing powers that be' and the right wing media will argue the exact opposite to the statement highlighted (unsurprisingly), and it's also a pretty convincing argument backed up by studies etc. Although the objectivity expressed through the interpretation and presentation of those studies is also questionable.

Regarding objectivity in this scenario, I don't think it's as much a case of total objectivity being a myth but rather how that person is perceived. They may have unbiased intent, but are perceived to be biased. It boils down to: How do you determine bias? Ultimately it's a game of perceptions.