Do you think many journalist and scientist are too political to be objective in their jobs?

Question

anyone knows data or reporting can be skewed if chosen to do so...

Answer 1

Oh yeah. Journalists now tell you what the news means. Not report it. How about letting us decide?

Answer 2

i think some are, maybe not scientists though. would it have really mattered what polotical party albert einstein was part of? if somebody can slove world hunger, or cure aids, i don't care who they vote for. or even if there vocal with it. a good scientist doesn't require a objective polotical stance.
i think some jouranlists are too polotical, but i think when they are there colors show to brighly, so i do think it is rare, but things happen. if you want to call Rush a journalist i think he's way too biased. i myself refuse to give him recognition for anything other then being a overweight drug addict.
or like when FOX news ran a flyer showing mark foley to be a democrat. to me when you do stupid obviousley biased things or say remarks you lose credibility.
however i do believe network news is basically a joke, it's more for entertainment value then it is close to informative. so in that sense i think it's irrelevant becasue both sides get to speak there case.
if someone skews data in the news, they have every other network having a field day correcting and discrediting them. IE. the foley democrat thing.
if a scientists skews data he'll usually be be found out. someother scientist will try his expriement or test his hyothosis, find him wrong and discredit them. it happens all the time, or at least it used too. you can't just claim anything you want in science becasue there are alot of people that will immediatley try and prove you wrong. that;s the beauty of science, it leaves no room for errors.

Answer 3

How is this for objective? During the Vietnam war, a panel of prominent journalist (can't remember names... was cronkite, rather, somebody famous.. will find out and edit post) were being interviewed about embedded reporters. A questions was asked.... "If you saw an enemy ambush coming and you could yell out to save the troops, knowing you might get killed, would you?" The journalist answer, "No". The question was rephrased to say "If you saw an enemy ambush coming and you could yell out to save the troops, saving them and yourself, would you?" The journists answer, "No". Next question, "Why not". The journalists answer "Because my job is to report the news as it happens, not interfere with it". Journalist first, American second! That's pretty objective.

Answer 4

Read Bill O'Reilly's new book Culture Warrior which has plenty of examples of the media's liberal bias.
As for scientists, many are only after government money to pay for their research. Can that be unbiased?
Anyone who understands the complexity of our environment and the human body could not possible think that even with billions of years that all of it would come together as it is today.
Most scientists have given up on the big bang concept so they have now come up with other concepts as to how things evolved only because many refuse to acknowledge a divine creator.

Answer 5

i'm a scientist and we've issues which include peer evaluate to end biasness. the actual undeniable actuality that individuals continuously attempt to declare scientists are incorrect and that their way of wondering is ideal inspite of the very actuality they lack peer evaluate and any sufficient evidence to diminish back up their case. that is why all reputable govenments believe technology at the same time as it has gone through such scrutiny and ttesting. And to the guy who stated scientists continuously attempt to regulate their effects to equivalent their hypothosys and predictions is blatently incorrect. many cases predictions were incorrect, despite the indisputable fact that predictions are many times perfect as we use clinical understanding to acuratly predict consequences. also maximum study technology that does no longer have a income is funded through governments who've no interfiernce in what experiments and innovations we do/try.

Answer 6

You're absolutely right! Journalists today ask people what the story is. Old school journalists go dig it up.

Answer 7

Journalists definitely.
Scientists sometimes. When they do, I consider it a crime against nature.

Answer 8

I think that they are "too political" by human nature. Asking someone to be indifferent or to have unbias opinions is like asking someone to pass up a million dollars: it's just not going to happen.

Answer 9

many journalists, and some scientists

Answer 10

Yes. Because sometimes they might need to sympathize certain causes or parties so they can get support.
Luckily, many other remains neutral.