Ethics in Journalism: Why is the press so gullible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TK421
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sundiver said:
Are you saying that to concede the truth is a better path to take?
Conceding would be compromise of the truth. The truth is God. It is primary to obey God. To concede is the rupture of our devotion to God.

Most journalists are trained in liberal colleges. They don’t know how to report the news in an unbiased way. They are in perpetual campaign mode for their favorite candidate or party.
Click to expand...
No, I’m saying that the method St. Paul used with the Athenians–looking for whatever little island of common ground there is–is the way to go.
 
“common ground” Can you explain how it applies to journalism today?
 
edwest211 said:
“common ground” Can you explain how it applies to journalism today?
Click to expand...
You’re not saying that there are no journalists who agree with any part of Church teaching, right?

For instance, when Oregon activists tried to get same-sex marriage passed, our Archbishop made it clear that the Church had no problem with establishing a convenient legal route for adults who cannot marry to establish a legal relationship of mutual care. That wasn’t found to be acceptable, because the activists weren’t looking for anything that siblings or people with no sexual relationship could set up. They wanted their relationships to be treated the same in every way as a marriage, even though their official complaint was that it was too difficult for adults to set up a relationship of mutual care. The Archbishop did make an attempt to answer what he thought were legitimate concerns that could have a legitimate use, though. He did not just make a blanket denunciation of every one of their complaints.
 
It seems to me that the media (radio, TV, newspapers, magazines) should be trying to give the public enough facts to make a reasonable decision about a subject. In a large number of issues, they haven’t even bothered.

Take one example: Trump’s tariffs on aluminum and steel. Here are some questions the media should have answered:
  1. What are the 10 (for example) largest steel companies in the US?
  2. How many of those steel companies are US owned and how many foreign owned?
  3. How many of those companies own steel mills in Canada and Mexico as well as the US?
  4. Of the companies who own steel mills in more than one country, how many transfer iron and back forth across borders to do certain steps in the processing? How many times do they cross borders before a final product is completed?
  5. Ignoring the management of the steel companies, who are the owners? What portion of the ownership is US vs. foreign? And if foreign, what countries?
  6. How much of the decline in the steel industry is due to the negligence of US management? What are some examples of new processing techniques used in foreign countries that US companies refused to implement? When were these techniques introduced?
  7. What industries are the biggest users of steel? (Auto? tin cans? structural steel? RR?) How much would they be affected by tariffs–i.e., what % of their cost is steel?
I could go on. None of this, to my knowledge, has been covered by the media. I investigated a lot of these questions on my own. A lot of what I discovered is very relevant to the debate: for example, one of the largest US steel companies is owned by a Russian oligarch. Does he need or deserve official US protection? Several steel companies own plants in 2-3 countries and regularly shipped steel back and forth to do specialized processing in another plant across the border. Does it make sense to tax them each time they cross a border to ship unfinished steel to one of their own plants? How could that possibly help them? Many, if not most, of the largest steel companies are foreign owned and managed. How would tariffs defend US interest (except jobs)? And so on. Without knowing any of this, you can’t possibly take a position, and you certainly couldn’t debate the topic. So the media (all of them) have failed.
 
Last edited:
Journalists must now do their jobs in an industry that has been taken over by corporate owners. The corporate owners want one thing, more money. Sure, there are still many excellent journalists and they do amazing work.

You are not going to find the serious journalism on the clickable link that pops up or on the Commentary that passes for 24X7 news these days.

I unplugged from all of the news-ertainment a long time ago. I read the newswires, I follow journalists, I watch a lot of C-span.
 
I know the newspaper business. There are two versions: the large city dailies and the locals. The large dailies could care less. They are invested in their mindset. Ideology before customers. In the current media-created environment, it is radical atheist. The locals can publish material that is closer to the truth.

You make specific mention of same-sex marriage. Yes, the activists claimed that anything less than one to one equivalence with heterosexual marriage was unacceptable. Anything else, they said, would make them second-class.

Here’s how daily newspapers work.

Morning: A staff meeting is held. News is divided up by category and priority.

Writers get their assignments.
Photographers get their assignments.

No one is an individual. Everyone has an editor for text and photos. Nothing goes in that isn’t approved. Each paper has an editorial policy that must be followed.

The news feeds run all night. News is coming in constantly but there are only so many pages allotted for actual news. The rest is cut or set aside to do a special report or feature section.
 
Too many things are investor owned today. There was a time when a lot of independent newspapers, TV stations, radio stations and magazines existed. As time passed, wealthy individuals and investor groups began to buy them. For a while in the United States, all entities were limited as far as how many media outlets they could own. That changed, and more and more outlets are owned by a handful of entities. They have the ability to tell people - journalists - to cover things and promote things they like. And nothing else. Unless they grow to monopoly size, the US Justice Department will leave them alone.

Multinational companies have existed since the 1930s as technology like aviation improved and larger ocean-going ships were built.
 
It’s not just about money, it’s about promoting certain ideas.
 
In my business experience, lofty ideals only go so far, eventually the rubber meets the road and you gotta make a profit.
 
I work in the book business. Lofty ideals can go very far if you have the knowledge and skill. The key ingredient is working hard all the time.
 
As someone who used to work in newspapers: reporters are paid very poorly. You get what you pay for.
 
edwest211 said:
There was a time when a lot of independent newspapers, TV stations, radio stations and magazines existed.
Click to expand...
I’m just quoting part of your post. I think we agree on this one. In the past, in the US at least, most newspapers were openly in favor of one party or another. Often larger cities had multiple papers, some on one side, some on the other. So you could factor in bias because you knew what they favored. But this changed: most major newspapers today try to be neutral and unbiased, or at least they say they are. But clearly some media (Fox) have a particular point of view.

I’m not sure how many people realize how Mussolini dealt with the press. Did he impose censorship? Did he imprison those who disagreed? No. No need. He simply had his rich supporters buy the major newspapers, who then only published favorable news. We have a similar situation in Montana: local papers were reporting on “dark money” illegally influencing state politics. “Dark money” simply bought the newspapers, fired the reporters who were investigating, and eliminated the investigative departments of those papers. Problem solved. How long will it be before a right-wing oligarch buys CBS and fires Stephen Colbert? Personally, I’m amazed it hasn’t happened yet.

But as I said above, NONE of the media is providing the basic information we need to make informed decisions about today’s issues. And yes, facts (yes, there are such things) will favor one side or another. A simple example: the 2nd amendment. What exactly is it? One version was passed by Congress and preserved in the National Archives. A different version was ratified by the Senate and authenticated by the Sec. of State (Jefferson). So which is the “real” version? It makes a difference in the interpretation. And yet probably 99.9% of the population is unaware of this issue. Or the issue about counting illegal immigrants in the census: How many people are aware of the history of this question in the census? How many are aware of the implications?
 
It’s not the press who is so gullible. The press is a well-oiled machine. It’s the people who read it who are gullible.
 
Convenience has become too convenient. To get good information, I have to look for it. Too many people aren’t taught basic research.
 
Wife was a newspaper journalist for 15 years.
The press are not gullible, they are prejudiced and biased towards modern liberal and progressive causes. These liberal points of view are assumed, to the point where dissent is not tolerated, and you will in fact NOT get career advancement if you are not one of the faithful.
I have been at parties with these people before, and if you say something against orthodoxy they just kinda stare as if you are an idiot. So it’s not really gullibility, it’s more the loss of open mindedness.

The press I am speaking of here is the large percentage of mainstream media that work at unionized urban newspapers, major TV networks, etc…
There are exceptions, but mainstream commercial media is overwhelmingly liberal orthodox. The creed contains pro abortion, AGW global warming, LGBTQ, and all of the lifestyle factors. Wine, no beer. Yoga. Veganism. Etc… generally speaking. These things are either admired or are essential for social integration and career advancement.
 
Last edited:
“If you don’t read the newspaper, you’re uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you’re mis-informed.”

― Mark Twain
 
Mark Twain was way too glib. Not a good example. I have seen newspapers from the time period. That was back when the average citizen could walk in and ask to speak to the editor.
 
Last edited:
Quite false. Many people get actual news from specialized sources which they can verify.
 
And oddly enough, these medial folks are so out of touch that DT manipulates them very deftly.
They believe that mainstream Americans think like they do, and so they illustrate Trump’s faults believing that people will hate him. And the more they talk about him the more DT can use them. They lost the election, and are still rabid to destroy the guy, and he turns them to his advantage.

They are so incredibly out of touch with reality.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top