Ethics in Journalism: Why is the press so gullible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TK421
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
YourNameHere said:
I respectfully disagree.
People in the media, especially the broadcast media, are concerned with ratings. That drives all that they do. People who watch television news are looking for a fight or some kind of an argument.
Those in the media need not try to insert any kind of opinion. The story is the story.
For example, if the President tweets that some person is a jerk, the media needs only to show the tweet. They need not say anything about the tweet.
The story is the story.
Click to expand...
I think that twenty minutes watching FOX news and then switching over to CNN demonstrates that our media (for whatever reason) absolutely do insert their opinions into the news, both in the stories they choose to cover and how they choose to cover them.

It has gotten to the point that any attempt at neutrality is considered to be intellectual dishonestly. Having an honest difference of opinion on what the news is and what it means is chalked up to intellectual dishonesty. Honestly, it is a nut house out there! Some honestly try and I’m afraid some don’t even pretend to try, but there is no intellectual Switzerland for those delivering the news!!

This makes trying to figure out what really is happening and why it is happening far too complicated. You can tell from watching foreign outlets and from watching domestic channels that various ones are failing to cover some news and how each slants their coverage. It is very frustrating.
 
Last edited:
The trouble is who decides whether a news story is neutral or not?
When I was growing up, I was told to read several newspaper, to watch some TV news and listen to radio news, and to read magazines. Kind of a broad base of different mediums in an effort to get an overall view of news.
 
YourNameHere said:
The trouble is who decides whether a news story is neutral or not?
When I was growing up, I was told to read several newspaper, to watch some TV news and listen to radio news, and to read magazines. Kind of a broad base of different mediums in an effort to get an overall view of news.
Click to expand...
I don’t know if it is ratings, political pressure from the media owners or new sources or sponsors or the sponsor’s target demographic or simply philosophical polarization or what, but it is a lot of work to even eke out what is going on in the world, let alone why it is happening, what might happen next and where our duty lies. I don’t think it is possible to point the finger in one direction, though. I think it is next to impossible for a news outlet to deliver a dispassionate report on what’s going on in the world. Yes, the best you can do is to try to sample from all over the spectrum.
 
Last edited:
That is why it is important to seek out news from different companies and mediums (i.e., print, broadcast, internet, etc.)
 
YourNameHere said:
That is why it is important to seek out news from different companies and mediums (i.e., print, broadcast, internet, etc.)
Click to expand...
This leads back to a central question: How much news do we need and how much of our lives should we or may we dedicate to getting it? Honestly, we have to have a life that focuses on God and not politics and we need to cultivate some peace and detachment from those who pursue power and influence. Conversely, we need to know whether duty calls us in this direction or that and we need to be responsible voters, as Christians in a representative democracy.

On that note…I need to tear myself away from here and get back to my real-life duties, lol.
 
Last edited:
I believe that fair and balanced reporting still is stressed in journalism, but much pressure is brought on journalists to get the story first. Sometimes an accurate account cannot be arrived at in just few short minutes. It may take hours or days. In a rush to report a story, mistakes are made and it sometimes looks like their is biased reporting when in actuality it is imprecise reporting.
 
It depends on the medium. However, fair and accurate reporting is always the goal. I’ve seen the process in action. The media contacts the police, who may say: “This is all we can say at this time.” The story is then updated as new information comes in.

The internet has allowed for far too many news sources which does not lead to better new. I always recommend highly specialized sources for non-sensational facts.
 
Last edited:
I think it is a pretty common situation, and easy to fall into. As for those in angst and those more interested in serenity, they also span the age ranges. I’d say I easily spend far more time learning about the news than my college-age sons do, and they spend more time on it than their dad (who is probably the most serene in the house in that respect, lol.)
 
Last edited:
Nope, I’m their mom.
No worries. I get that a lot online. Raised with a lot of brothers and majored in a STEM field, I guess.
 
Last edited:
You want a highly-specialised source on politics?

You could probably find one in the political science department of a local university in your area.
[/quote]

Indeed. But I want Ed’s recommendation. He says that he always has them to pass on. We could all benefit from unbiased reportage.
 
edwest211 said:
Unfortunately, politics is a moving target. I can’t help. Sorry.
Click to expand...
You were talking about news services. And you don’t have one that covers politics that you consider unbiased? Of course it’s a moving target. That’s why I wanted an unbiased source. So I guess that all your sources have some political bias. OK…

…let’s try news about science. Give a source that you recommend that isn’t biased that reports on science.
 
Last edited:
The one I’m looking at has articles about the planet being billions of years old, how to combat global warming and lots of stuff on abiogenesis and evolution.

I know you don’t believe in any of that so I must have the wrong one. You’re not going to give me your version of unbiased reporting that you don’t believe yourself! I mean, check this out:

“According to the authors of the study, these results suggest that the earliest DNA molecules could have appeared in parallel with RNA – some 4 billion years ago. This would mean that DNA molecules emerged around 400 million years earlier than previously thought.”

So a link to your unbiased Science Daily would be handy.
 
Last edited:
Anrakyr said:
40.png
Wozza:
The one I’m looking at has articles about the planet being billions of years old
Click to expand...
Are you a young earther?
Click to expand...
Well, I tend to 4.5 billions years. Some say closer to 4.6.billion. So in that sense, I go with the younger earth.

Edit: Ed tends towards what might be described as a very young earth. You should discuss it with him if you want more on that.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top