You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: The Media's New Mantra Is Dump On Trump
Maybe Republicans should ask themselves why journalists don’t vote Republican. Finding the answer and correcting the problem, if they feel it is and if they want those journalists’ votes, they can then fix it, otherwise they must like all the negative coverage.
Trump should start by actually getting a real hair cut instead of that stupid narcissistic vain comb over... the truth starts with that.
Posted using Partiko iOS
How Trump wears his hair has nothing to do with the truth in journalism which is what this post is about. Plus, journalists are bound by an oath to report the facts regardless of their political affiliations.
When a journalist goes to journalism college they drill into their head's the Journalist's Creed. The creed has been published in more than 100 languages, and a bronze plaque of The Journalist's Creed hangs at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.
It makes no difference what political party a journalist is affiliated with they are supposed to follow that creed and certain ethics for the benefit of the public to ensure we are getting real news. Apparently, those ethics have gone out the window.
Journalism ethics are very specific. While various existing codes have some differences, most share common elements including the principles of truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness, and public accountability, as these apply to the acquisition of newsworthy information and its subsequent dissemination to the public.
Like many broader ethical systems, journalism ethics include the principle of "limitation of harm". This often involves the withholding of certain details from reports such as the names of minor children, crime victims' names or information not materially related to particular news reports release of which might, for example, harm someone's reputation.
But what journalism has degraded into today is transactional journalism and that is very dangerous for a fully functioning society.
Reporters may offer favorable treatment in exchange for what they call getting a scoop. They may agree to let an interview subject dictate terms and topics and timing of publication. They may promise to ask some questions and avoid others. They may carry on cozy relationships that allow reporting to be influenced in ways they don't disclose to the public. Usually, reporters are favorable with those with whom they're ideologically in sync. All of this is bad for the public good and manipulates the debate. It makes it easy for a special interest group to accomplish a smear or put forth their agenda.
Today, the news bombards us with the same messages over and over again and when they do that I can't help but question the validity of what they are saying. Was it really investigative journalism that leads to the stories we're reading on the front pages or were they spoon fed to reporters to control the narrative and shape public opinion towards a conclusion regardless of whether the facts support the story? All too often, it seems, there are no facts to back up many of the stories we're reading.
I wrote more about this in How Fake News Happens Through Transactional Journalism - What Happened To Real Investigative Journalism?
Thanks for the dissertation, hehehe, but you could have just said journalist swore an oath to be unbiased and impartial.
And all I was saying was that the RepubliCons must be doing something to push all those journalists to the left.
Posted using Partiko iOS
That is an interesting point that would be worth investigating further. All I'm saying is real journalism is supposed to actively refrain from being biased and report the full story. In this case they don't appear to be doing that.
Could this be like a US Marine ordered to gun down Vietnamese babies... what to do? Follow orders or make shit up to get out of the situation?
Posted using Partiko iOS
What does journalistic ethics have to to do with following military orders? I don't see the connection.
I'm visiting Vietnam ATM. Beautiful country.
Both are supposed do something such as follow orders or remain unbiased... but what happens when the order is unethical or the politician is unethical?
Some marines rebel and some journalists fudge.
Posted using Partiko iOS
Oh, I see the comparison you're making. In both cases, the rules and procedure for not following orders or breaching journalistic ethics is clearly laid out. The military court martial's the offender and the journalist is supposed to get fired.
Journalism, unfortunately, has become more of a business and the public relations department of various business and political interests instead of real journalism. That is concerning and problematic for democracy. It also means that we have to rely more on our own critical thinking and research from different sources to come up with something closer to the truth about various issues.
We can't take any reported story at face value and must dig deeper to get the full picture, something most people will not take the time to do. This means we'll end up with more sheep who buy whatever story is presented to them as long as it supports their world view.
I think there was a rule or law that used to male it so media had to cover both sides of a topic equally. Now, unfortunately media doesn’t have to do that, and yes, can put a spin to a story, making for a one sided point of view. This forces the audience to either work harder for the truth or get spoon fed what the media serves up🤷🏽♂️🤔🤔😔
Posted using Partiko iOS