Atlanta Progressive News Fires Reporter For Trying To Be Objective

Jonathan Springston, a longtime writer for Atlanta Progressive News was recently fired because his vision of fact-based reporting didn't match his boss's. A statement released by his editor, Matthew Cardinale, said Springston was asked to leave, “because he held on to the notion that there was an objective reality that could be reported objectively, despite the fact that that was not our editorial policy at Atlanta Progressive News.” While I appreciate the editor's honesty, I have to wonder about the wisdom of guiding your news organization into the philosophical position that objective reality does not exist. Talk amongst yourselves.

Comments

Seems true to me

[Anonymous Coward]

We can *try* be objective, but it won't ever happen. In some ways it seems better to state your biases up front and report it as you see it.

Re:Seems true to me

[jayme0227]

I agree to some extent. I think reporters should present their own biases upfront, however they should make every effort to eliminate that bias in their reporting. Unfortunately Fox News, MSNBC, and the blogosphere seem to have grown accustomed to the idea that having a right to your own opinion means that you have a right to your own facts, also. Honestly, it's gotten crazy out there. People need to stop calling these organizations "News" and start calling them by their true name: Political Propaganda.

Re:Seems true to me

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC, BBC, CNBC, etc., and the blogosphere seem to have grown accustomed to the idea that having a right to your own opinion means that you have a right to your own facts, also.

There, fixed it for you.

Post-modernist editor?

[dov_0]

Either the editor is confirmed post-modernist bent on proving relative truth or he's an old-time editor clumsily putting, "I don't care about the facts, I want a good story" into newer language.

Re:Post-modernist editor?

[RockDoctor]

Either the editor is confirmed post-modernist bent on proving relative truth or he's an old-time editor clumsily putting, "I don't care about the facts, I want a good story" into newer language.

Well, contrary to the finest traditions of /. (and other post-modernist "media"), I RTFA'd :

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.

It's an editor with a definite agenda. Which if he (she? ; not sure ; WGAF?) weren't so willing to put it into grey and white on the page, would be slightly disconcerting.

I think that only a modest amount of selective quoting would allow the sacked journo to use these public statements by his former boss as really strong adverts for him getting hired by a (hopefully) larger and (more hopefully) better paying publication. That's a reference to cry for.

OK, it would also be a flag to the likes of Murdoch that "this guy has got TROUBLE written all over his CV", but I'd be surprised if one wanted to go from working for [such a forgettable paper as the one I've already forgotten the name of] to working for the Aussie scumbag.

Which reminds me to buy a non-Murdoch newspaper this afternoon.

Re:Post-modernist editor?

[dov_0]

I only scanned TFA. As for Murdoch papers, I agree with you. Murdoch papers are only adverts and/or propaganda tied together with sex-related articles and aimed at the lowest intelligence level they can get away with.