The first amendment says that the people have a freedom of press and speech. what that means is people have the right to say what they want when they want as long as it not destroying someones life physically. so journalist have the right to say what they feel about any situation or problem they may have in their lives. so don't criticism anyone before u look at it in their point of view.

I believe that reporters and journalists should be able to speak their minds freely but should also be prepared for the heat that may come back on them. If we are given the right to have freedom of speech, why should it be limited because of an occupation?

I believe that candidates should be able to say what they feel is necessary, but remembering to stay unbiased and not rude. Democrates and Republicans should be able to state their opinions while not slandering their opponents.

Reporters say everything else but they find it hard to express political view like Ryan said. But yet everyone is their own person.

i want to major in journalism, but as i been hearing, journalism is dying out. like there's so many journalism in this industry to the point that theres nothing to cover anymore.

Journalist and just regular community people have their opinion. I feel as if they want to state their opinion, then they should be able to, doesnt mean what they say is accurate, its just they opinion, everything is biased .

Journalists are people. They will always be people, and they think like people. They can't help if being a journalist is their job, that's what they're good at. But we should not deprive them of their opportunities just because of their occupation. Yes its impossible to be completely objective, but we shouldn't always assume that people are gonna produce biased news just because they publicized their political views.

Or you could say - report fairly on their personal lives that encroach on their beats.

Reporters and reporting used to be about giving the cold hard facts. but these days all you hear about would be the news that we already know.

I believe that we already live in a society where the average Joe can be a reporter. With all the public networking sites and blogging site today it is possible for anyone to report on anything. In reality when look at our society we can all be considered "journalists" in one sense or another. Whether we are writing for Time magazine or blogging on facebook we provide journalist critiques in one form or another.

This was the best show yet, even though writers and journalist are real people, we don't look at them as human beings. Journalist have gotten a bad name such a mudslingers, ruthless people and this gives insight and shows that they are actual people

well my question is arent writers and journalists regular people? what makes them any different from me ... honestly, this podcast is somewhat contradictory because i feel like they are regular people at the end of day, the only thing that makes them different is the fact that they spread their opinions more freely than others do.

This is excellent work. Thanks!

This story is very interesting. Its really crazy how reporters arent allow to have and opinion on politics. i feel that they should be allow to vote but yea there should be a limit to it. when they vote that's their choice but they just shouldnt put their business out. but its wrong not to let them vote because every vote counts

Yea Well Ummmm, regular people r already like reports or journalist bc u always here bout wat people think or there feeling about events or problems. Having regular people do that would be a bad idea.

True Objectivity is completely impossible. Even you tell a story you are bias b/c you are putting your own twist on it sometimes. Even though is extremely important for reporters to be unbias that just wont happen. I think that letting reporters support candidates is actually a good thing. You get a view of something that you might not get anywhere and makes things even better.

I think the idea of having regular people as reporters or journalists would be great. You know how many different opinions we would get? Sure that may not be the greatest thing but it would show how people really felt about subjects.

Although true objectivity is impossible to achieve, I do think it is highly important for reporters to try their best to not have their opinion in a certain report. It is simply their job. I believe if a reporter wanted to put his opinion on a certain work or news story, their are other jobs for that, such as talk shows or some magazines which enable honest opinion. The importance of citizens of the United States knowing the unbias truth is very important. If news reporter stations allow reporters to be bias, it would allow for not the whole truth to be showed. I believe not being in political organizations is just a side effect of being a reporter. Each job has something negative about it, and if reporters have such a huge problem with giving citizens an unbiased truth, reporting is not for them.

I don' think it right to not let reporters support candidates. We as the people understand that they aren't really completely objective, they just pay one on TV. As long as their views don't come out while they're reporting (which happens most of the time anyway), I feel reporters can rally for whoever they want.

When the british banned the IRa terriosts speech it was good that they did that. But its funny how the politicians cant even express their own feelings towards the meadia and ect.

When Britiain banned the media from letting IRA terrorists speak, the solution was to have actors repeat the statements of IRA reps. Could OTM use that system for Michael Kinsley? When I hear his voice, I have to pull the buds from my ears.

Kinsley has a voice for print media.

How about a different approach? What if journalists substituted the word "empiricism" for "objectivity"?

Objectivity is not just impossible for humans, it's undesirable for journalists. Journalists OUGHT to be biased, but only in three ways: 1) in favor of the common good; 2) in favor of making what's important interesting using writing and technical skills; and 3) in favor of brevity.

Empiricism demands careful observation from as many perspectives as relevant and the logical assembly of those observations into news accounts. It requires that partisan biases be as limited as possible. It requires transparency. It recognizes that deadlines make all reporting tentative and subject to revision.

Objectivity has hamstrung American journalism, often causing journalists to substitute accuracy for truth, and equalizing different sides of issues regardless of where the evidence falls, and for failing to pursue the public's key information needs in favor of stenographic reports of events.

this was pretty interesting to me, being a reporter is about having you own view on things. it's all about what can you say to make others listen and believe your statement even if its wrong. reporters are very persuasive.

this was kinda interesting to me, but i think it's kinda crazy how reporters can't express there political opinions or suppress them, everybody is there own person

The On the Media discussion doesn't fully acknowledge that good reporters covering an issue over time -- health care, the Israel/Palestinian situation, gay rights, climate change, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, etc. -- form deeply held opinions based on the rich evidence of their own reporting. It then becomes dishonest for them to pretend that they don't have strong views on that issue. I've been covering health poliicy for 25 years and I can't pretend that based on everything I've learned I don't favor government policies to extend health coverage to all Americans. It becomes hard to take seriously arguments that the country shouldn't adopt universal coverage. In the past, it must have been the same for reporters covering the African-American civil rights struggle as well as the fight for equal rights for women. Another major issue left undiscussed by On the Media is journalists may be accused of bias if they simply insist on hewing to the best evidence rather than engaging in bogus he-said, she-said reporting. If a reporter refuses to give equal credence to climate change deniers when the overwhelming body of scientific evidence is that manmade climate change is occuring, that reporter will be accused of slanting the news for personal political reasons. I do wish more journalists and news organizations would break free, when appropriate, from the standard "objective" journalism model, which too often obfuscates rather than elucidates.

I have little to say about journalistic practice today, but I do know that the idea of 'impartial' or 'unbiased' reporting is a relatively new notion. It was demanded by advertisers, not consumers, at a time when media was expanding its customer base so much that it was feared that opinions offensive to some groups would limit that expansion. It is odd, too, since this development from advocacy journalism to non-partisan reporting took place at a time just as it was becoming realized that it was impossible to separate personal perspective even from the most rigorously professional work. But, in a way, this is understandable, because the process was and is part of a system of manipulation quite aware of human limitations, but very much seeking to avail itself of them precisely through a pretense to the reverse.

The Euro-model of journalism assumes a biased stance, but the best of it still aims for accuracy and fairness, if not the American ideal of "objectivity." But after a century of trying to delineate between "news reporting" and "commentary," American journalism may look more European in the future. In the meantime, American journalism is undergoing a transformation that's causing all kinds of confusion. All the lines are blurring. The Juan Williams and Keith Olbermann episodes are high-profile, high-stakes examples.
To ask if they're journalists isn't nuanced enough. Of course they are -- but what KIND of journalists? What are their roles and expectations? Should Williams have tried to fill two different roles at Fox and NPR? Should Olbermann be free to donate money to political campaigns? For that matter, should local beat reporters be blogging their opinions about stories and people they cover? There's no law against any of this. But given the current situation -- not just the changes in the media universe but also the chronic confidence and credibility gap for the news media -- it might not be the smartest move right now.

Re " Reporters as people"

You introduced Ethan Bronner as NYTimes Jerusalem bureau chief who " has spent decades on difficult beats and managed not to get vested in his stories ". Nothing is farther from the truth. You convenientlydid not mention the fact that his son was part of the Israeli Army attacking Gaza in 2009.. And you think Bronner was objective and professional in his reporting. You have not read any of his pieces or you agree with his biases. Go ahead and declare your biases agreeing with whatever Israel does. And if it is OK for Bronner to report with his own slant .. where in the american media is the the reporting from the other side.

Very interesting, i do think many journalists should stay obtain and refrain to what they are saying about their political opinions. Although they also should be able to report a story with biased feelings.

This is a very interesting point. But I do think it is fairly ridiculous for reporters to have to suppress their thoughts and not be able to express themselves politcally. I also don't think that if someone were a Democrat or Republican, they should be able to report a stroy with biased comments. All in the same, journalists and reporters need to be open to both sides and not subjective.

Interesting perspective, but I would like OTM to perhaps revisit the topic (brought up in an episode 4 or so years ago) of political party affiliation by professional journalists

Compare with financial journalism: CNBC reporters preface their report on a new phone by saying they've invested in Google. If you are registered independent - great! But if Brooke or Juan or whomever is a registered D or R, it'd be ethical to know that, esp. during election season.

Those mobilizing to reinstate Olberman claim there are others on the payroll at MSNBC who are much more overtly political, but on the right. And if this is about Ron Williams, how many remember Bob Edwards? And Williams is yet another example of rewarded conservatism, as Edwards is of punished liberalism. But with his old job open again, perhaps NPR could get him, Edwards, back?

A chinese wall between preaching and practice is just hypocrisy, more likely to deceive than to enlighten. And more likely than not to be meant to, especially in a culture which rewards hidden conservatism and punishes revealed liberalism.

Certainly journalists should try to stay objective and refrain from expressing their political opinions. They should be held to the high standards of NBC. Keith Olberman, however, is not really a journalist. He is a "political infotainer." His very job consists of expressing his opinions, which are no secret, and the opinions of his viewers, only he expresses them so much more eloquently than we ever could, and reinforces them with the information he chooses to present. In fact, this is why I stopped watching MSNBC. Even as I worried that politicians live in a political echo chamber, I found that I was creating one of my own, with Keith and Rachel as the main noisemakers. I think Keith should be allowed to keep his job and make any financial contributions he wants. I'm pretty sure Rush Limbaugh and Glenn beck have no such restrictions.

Really--Ethan Bronner is your go-to guy for unbiased reporting in the middle east!? And you don't even bother to ask him how having a son in the IDF influences his reporting. Maybe he has a good answer--but you don't even bother to ask him--how is that even remotely fair questioning on your part?

Sorry!, the comment I just posted was meant for a different discussion. Please let me try again.

From my impression, when George Stephanopolus started at ABC he did not seem to be going anywhere until he published a scathing critique of Clinton, the next thing, he seems to be running the place. When David Brooks began doing a weekly commentary on the PBS NewsHour he was mild mannered and relatively impartial, but after several months he bagan spouting the party line, even to the use of recognizable talking points. The next thing, he is editor of the Wall St. Journal political page.

America is a nation of cults, of evangelical schemes from interest only loans to quirky religious rites to worthless products that no one would ever buy until everone has to have one. We maintain a grim silence about our political beliefs for fear of falling prey to someone on a mission. The one thing a cult-minded culture cannot tolerate is an open mind that will not conceed defeat in the face of unsupported doctrine. As a result we do not take responsibility for our opinions and therefore have no right to influence others. But democracy is about precisely such influence, and such responsibility. Grim silence about our political views undermines our pretenses to believe in democracy, however valuable such pretense is to our cultish tendencies.

Here is an experiment for anyone working in any large news media outlet.
In the lunch room or during break time simply be seen reading a book by a New York Times Best Selling conservative author like Malkin, Levin or Ingraham and see what happens.
It will be an instructive study into the political tolerance of the American newsroom and its professional and social pressure on journalists, producers and editors. Thanks

Wow - this is a brilliant story. Thank you so much for launching this. You know, folks in the entertainment television industry are constantly checking in with their audience, on a daily basis with ratings and comments and feedback.

Lately, the best tv companies have realized that you have to be in constant conversation with your audience to know if their perception of you comes close to your perception of yourselves. It rarely matches.

I think that kind of audience feedback for news outlets could be invaluable in the subject of this story and in the industry in general.

If that conversation is indeed going on, I've seen little evidence of its effect.

There are so many other kinds of biases inherent in the corporate American media's coverage that it's almost quaint to wring our hands over where a particular journalist is positioned along the bogus (and largely media-perpetuated) left-right spectrum. Far more insidious are the tendency to elevate the views of officialdom and plugged-in elites over informed activists; a herd mentality that leads to punishment of those enterprising reporters who deviate from "conventional wisdom" narratives; and an adherence to arbitrary standards of decorum that, for example, precludes out-and-out liars being labeled as such.

Then, of course, there is the foolish and misguided obsession with "balance" and the appearance of even-handedness as evidence of objectivity.
Kudos to Brooke Gladstone and guest Michael Kinsley for unpacking that tired, inadequate standard.

Instead of fretting, as the Washington Post's Len Downie does, over whether reporters APPEAR to be doing their job in a fair manner, the media should aim for actual intellectual honesty as the ultimate arbiter of their performance.

First of all, public Radio should view me as a citizen who must make informed decisions, not a mere 'consumer".
But then again, that's just the problem with 'public"radio. the public has been zapped from it . Instead of any critical inquiry into current events such as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan , we get pro-war propaganda from TOm Bowman , Scott Simon,Liane Hansen and Neal Conan among others ; all in the form of "hero" stories, field reports from "embedded "reporters, or interviews with elite Pentagon and State Dept. officials. So much for NPR
s claims of "independence " and"objectivity".
ON other fronts NPR views us as mere 'consumers' by displacing critical scritinty of the advertising industry by promoting it and systematically promoting commercial TV programs. Yes, this on "public" radio.So yes, I understand that obejectivity is not always possible in journalism but NPR decieves the public by claiming it without even attempting it.

Len Downie warns that the news consumer won't trust a story reported by someone with a known stance, and by association, won't trust the news organization. But news organizations can employ reporters of more than one political orientation. Send a different reporter to cover the subject the next day, and the next, if you are concerned about fair coverage.

It's far from clear that the audience *should* trust the reporter or the news organization. What the pretense to objectivity actually delivers is a surfeit of explanations of why the status is quo, and a he-said she-said substitute for actual investigation. A certain range of opinions is not to be offended, but the choice of that range is never explained or justified. This might be a successful business model (or might once have been), but it isn't as informative as simply calling them as you see them.