Lemann redux

Rebecca MacKinnon writes her sharp response to Columbia J-school’s Nicholas Lemann’s papal bull, arguing that this seems to be a continuation of the dean’s in-print debate with Hugh Hewitt over journalistic objectivity. Refusing to be transparent about his own views, Rebecca says,…

… leaves him and much of the journalistic profession open to all kinds of accusations of hidden political bias and dishonesty. Which in turn leads to a call from the more angry corners of the blogosphere for a reformation. This loss of public faith in American journalism’s claim to objectivity – and the question of what should be done about it – is the real story in my view. If people don’t trust you, it doesn’t matter how impeccable your reporting is, does it? That’s what’s happening today – the good work of many excellent journalists is being unfairly dismissed as biased by many Americans because of this loss of trust. What should journalism as a profession do about it?

: Missed it the first time around: Here is Hewitt on Lemann’s piece:

He is indeed “wedded” to the idea that old media cannot be faulted for its relentless agenda journalism. He is amiable about his rejection of the obvious critiques, but no more stubborn defender of the imperial press and its rights –both real and imagined– can be found.

And here‘s Hugh again, responding to Rebecca.

: Jay Rosen writes his response today.

: By the way, I emailed Lemann and invited him into the conversation, via comments or email that I’ll post. He said he was on deadline. I hope he does join in.