Univision journalist Jorge Ramos: "Neutrality Is Not An Option" For Journalists With Donald Trump
In the law, judges can often be finders of facts. Once these facts are discovered then the law is applied. Consequently, if one controls the facts then they control the outcome. Thus, playing games with the admissible facts becomes a constant tactic for attorneys. This makes it what actually constitutes the legal facts extremely important.
So likewise, when the the People go to make decisions they need facts. That is the role of the journalist; to discover and present the facts. What is so interesting here about Jorge Ramos's position is that journalists should be playing politicized games with the facts they present to the People.
In other words, journalists should go from reporting on what happens in the arena to becoming men and women of the arena.
What do you think? Do you want journalists that play politicized games with the facts that they present to the People? Or do you want investigative journalists that discover and report the facts no matter what they are? How can Steem change the economic incentives and behaviors of the journalists?
JORGE RAMOS: There are certain instances in which you have to take a stand. For instance, you did it. In that first question in that first debate when Donald Trump was confronted with the fact that he had insulted women and you took a stand, that's exactly what I'm saying. I'm not saying we should put aside objectivity; I am saying neutrality is not an option.
MEGYN KELLY: Let me ask you about that, Jorge, because that was not me taking a stand. That was me taking a question. I identified an issue and found it worthy of a question. It wasn't 'Here's what Megyn Kelly thinks of you, Donald Trump.' Is that what you're advocating, that we as journalists should inject our opinions and say that's racist or that's sexist?
RAMOS: No, what I am saying in certain instances that I just mentioned -- including racism, sexism, and discrimination -- I think we have to take a stand.
Hillary is going to be the next president. No doubt in my mind.
Journalistic objectivity is MOST important during times like these. If Donald Trump really is the second advent of Hitler, then it is more important than ever that we have an unbiased media.
what i ask you could be more racist than cold blooded murder ? I don't believe Trump can ever be accused of murdering someone !! Whereas his adversary......well...... ?? I think the press have done nothing but attack the future President of America on every level possible. Maybe journalists should ask him if he is also collecting rain water and maybe growing his own vegetables in his garden !! What a bigoted woman using racist really ??? ))))
Journalism is shit in part b/c shit makes more money. A system like Steem replaces ad based revenue with voting based revenue.
This is supposed to incentivise higher quality content instead of click bait. So yeah, I think Steem would create a better source of news were it to be adopted, but it alone wouldn't solve everything. Especially with steems current system of curation rewards that imo makes the quality of the content secondary to bandwagoning on posts that are predicted to be popular.
yes i have to say i agree with that analysis. We all see the herd voting on posters who are visibly too successful i,d would say. Its counter productive as this poker style voting is killing other good posts that people just dont see and even read as they are too busy searching for the next post from their already decided good horse !! this has to change or more evolve in time i hope.
Here is a recent post by @l0k1 saying:
I'm still on the fence on this but I thought I should share since your comment is relatable.
In response to; "Do you want investigative journalists that discover and report the facts no matter what they are?"; Yes, I would choose this option. The incentive structure of a platform like Steemit may create an environment more conducive to factual reporting but, that would depend on a serious meltdown in journalism as it currently exists. The Progressive movement has created a herd mentality that makes it undesirable to question its basic precepts. Until that happens I'm not sure any changes to the incentive structure will have an impact.
Cheers.