Longtime columnist for The Nation Alexander Cockburn has died in Germany of complications of cancer, it was reported today. He was 71.
I heard Cockburn speak once, in the late 1980s at an Orange County Press Club event. He, along with journalist and co-panelist Robert Scheer, said some things that day that sounded downright radical to a very young journalist. Contrary to our training and tradition, they said, we should ignore objectivity. Since everyone is biased, and those biases can’t be put away, we may as well acknowledge to our readers up front what our biases are, and let them be the final judge of our work against that backdrop.
In fact, our biases could be our guides to choosing good stories, and to overcoming the spin that so often attends political journalism, too.
As I recall, there was also an editor there from a mainstream paper such as the Washington Post, a man with several words in his title, who argued against Cockburn and Scheer. He wasn’t very persuasive.
It took some years, but eventually I came around to the point of view Cockburn and Scheer planted in my mind that day, that journalism was more than merely the rote recitation of facts or “getting both sides.” Done right, journalism goes beyond objectivity and aims to tell you what’s true and false, good and bad, and what it means for you and for the country. It’s always based on facts, and searching for what Bob Woodward of the Post calls “the best obtainable version of the truth.” It never lies, but it never hides behind false equivalencies or the notion that all sides always have an equally valid point to make, either. Because sometimes, they don’t.
I’m sad today to see that a powerful voice for that kind of journalism has been stilled. RIP, Alexander Cockburn.
I believe Alexander Cockburn would also push hard to get answers to the questions he asked, specially from those with whom he would generally agree. More so of those he liked. Another great one who had a great long life.
As to his influence on your style of interview. This weeks Politics now was far better than last week. Though I think it was more due to the honesty and forthrightness of the guest this time.
Diversifying the economy is a chicken egg thing. Education first? What pays for it? Industry first, then revenues can assist in expansion of education. During the boom was when the state should have invested in education. But that did not happen, everyone thought the train was going to keep on rolling. Instead it rolled right on over us and the reason those other states survived better was the entrenched industry they have had for a long time.
Even though he would not directly answer the tax amounts for education he did make it clear the public wants some results for the money currently in the system, then we will be looking at taxes. I have been saying that for years, we will talk taxes once the current spending is proven properly budgeted.
And you need to push to get the guest on your show to stay on topic. Scott Hammond certainly did and I think that is why he beat the supposed more conservative Leanard Foster who’s only thing was Scott Hammond lied, you covered it inadvertently with the sunset tax question. The first on your list.
I wonder if Scott Hammond is a member of the CCEA.
Scott Hammond actually answers your questions and stays on topic. I recommend watching last weeks show next to this weeks interview. You should be rather irritated with Steven Horseford. I certainly am. That guy is a smiling face, a user ( he used you) and an arrogant liar. No wonder Harry Reid likes him.
FAIR, BALANCED, …& UNAFRAID !