Ethics in Journalism: Why is the press so gullible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TK421
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I speak of politicians, in general, including the president.
Politicians spin the news. And they all criticize the media.
 
For the media, the story is what others do and say. They have a story to report one way or the other. The media is in the business of selling advertising. So, they have no agenda. The story is their agenda.
If a dog bites a man or a man bites a dog, it is a story. Why should the media care?
As individuals, I am sure that reporters align themselves to one side of the political persuasion or the other. But it terms of their job, the news is their agenda.
 
The kinds of things that lead to death threats being left on peoples’ voicemail has reached a level that makes one wonder about the future of civilization.

I remember Molly Ivins once saying that this was a hazard of defending free speech that we unfortunately have to live with. If we defend free speech, we’re going to find ourselves defending some really nasty people. If we don’t, we’re going to give carte blanche to nasty people in “civilized clothing” to bully all critics into silent submission.
 
Why should anti-abortion or pro-abortion rallies be covered by the media? The same things are said over and over again at these rallies. There is nothing new to report.
News is usually about something new happening. A bad is robbed. An earthquake occurs. A fire breaks out. These are all happenings.
 
Newspapers report on stories that people want to read about.
On occasion, they may editorialize on a subject, but that is on the op/ed page.
Many people say they want to read goods, but the fact is that people want to read just the opposite.
There is an old TV news adage, if it bleeds, it leads. That is what drives ratings for TV news. Unfortunate, but it is the truth.
 
That too, but the press does put their own spin on things as well. Hardly any media at all now simply reports things as they are, with no bias.
 
YourNameHere said:
For the media, the story is what others do and say. They have a story to report one way or the other. The media is in the business of selling advertising. So, they have no agenda. The story is their agenda.
If a dog bites a man or a man bites a dog, it is a story. Why should the media care?
As individuals, I am sure that reporters align themselves to one side of the political persuasion or the other. But it terms of their job, the news is their agenda.
Click to expand...
No, no, no. People in the media are very aware of the position they have in influencing public perceptions about social issues. They are more and more proactive about that, not less.
Besides, everybody has an agenda. You have one. I have one. Everybody has one. Anyone who says they don’t is either conning themselves or trying to con the rest of us, and those are not mutually exclusive possibilities.
I say this because no one can report on anything without choosing a point of view, what information to include, what to leave out, what words having what connotations to use. Those who are fair will avoid demonizing those who disagree with their point of view and might even attempt to acknowlege whatever legitimate points of contention that there are, but trying to be all things to everyone as if the writer is the one observer who sees above it all with no dog at all in the fight rarely works.
 
Last edited:
There was a time when journalism stressed fair and balanced reporting. And it still happens, but mostly at the local level. The large, established dailies are obviously biased and make sure they use the right words and cover the right things.
 
edwest211 said:
There was a time when journalism stressed fair and balanced reporting. And it still happens, but mostly at the local level. The large, established dailies are obviously biased and make sure they use the right words and cover the right things.
Click to expand...
I think the best examples of journalism did used to try to practice a sort of “prime directive,” in which they tried to report the news without influencing it, but I think it was done in order to establish themselves as “trusted” sources of information. (Yellow journalism that uses sensationalism to sell papers has always existed and probably always will.)

I think you’re right that major news sources are (a) seen by those in the organization as ways to influence politics and society and (b) target an audience that has the organization’s bias to some degree and trusts the organization more because it confirms their biases. People are not out looking for a news outlet that will challenge their sense of how the world is going. It is too hard to keep up on current events at all without being asked to do all that thinking!!

Take the President, for instance. He just makes stuff up out of whole cloth and I know it. That does not mean that everything that comes out of his mouth is a fabrication. The work of checking the extent to which he’s telling the truth is still necessary. Sometimes, for instance, when he falls all over himself flattering someone, that person actually does deserve the praise. You never know.

He is trying to put himself in a class by himself, I’d say, though.
I have taken a tour of the West Wing during two different administrations (one Democratic, one Republican) and I have to say that anyone who doesn’t become full of himself while being surrounded by that much flattery has to have a head that is far more level than most.
 
Last edited:
Facts are facts, right? A major fire, death, and conflicts. Fact-checking is job one. People will call you on it until they feel you - a particular paper - have stopped being concerned about just the facts. As one of the managers of a local paper told me: “Journalists are the unsung heroes.”

I think most people get frustrated if they can’t be sure if they are getting an accurate reporting of the facts. It is very bad and wrong to have a major politician who speaks a lot of nonsense. I think most people will ignore or stop caring to know if he ever says anything that is true.
 
edwest211 said:
Facts are facts, right? A major fire, death, and conflicts. Fact-checking is job one. People will call you on it until they feel you - a particular paper - have stopped being concerned about just the facts. As one of the managers of a local paper told me: “Journalists are the unsung heroes.”

I think most people get frustrated if they can’t be sure if they are getting an accurate reporting of the facts. It is very bad and wrong to have a major politician who speaks a lot of nonsense. I think most people will ignore or stop caring to know if he ever says anything that is true.
Click to expand...
In many cases, facts are facts.
In some cases, the facts are so many and come from so many sources that no one is going to make heads or tails of them without interpretation and selectivity of some kind. That’s where things can get dicey, even with the best of intentions. (It is a hazard in science, too.)
 
Last edited:
I understand that. It generally applies to distant and hard to access places - such as after a major flood. But in the majority of cases, most of the facts are available. The rest can be labeled “We don’t know yet” and can be updated. For example, a missing person is found.

In other cases, conflicting information can be presented. Example, a jet is said to have crashed in one spot and another statement says somewhere else, but it is later corrected once others reach the actual crash site. Of course, anyone with friends and relatives who may have been on board are very concerned.
 
Well, to be fair, there was never a paper or anything like that that was totally free of bias. That would be impossible.

But many more were far more neutral, and strove towards neutrality as a goal,.
[/quote]

I’m not sure if newspapers were ever remotely neutral, albeit in the past there were more clear outside enemies to direct all of the bias and negative energy towards. In lack of a clear enemy (a trade war with China and unease with Iran doesn’t really count) the press has started to cannibalize itself.

But even in the 16th century, the press was a nonstop propaganda machine against rivals, or at least a large portion of it.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top