Ethics in Journalism: Why is the press so gullible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TK421
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TK421

Guest
Rant:

Does anybody here have any background or experience in journalism?

Why do figures like Donald Trump and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez receive such grossly disproportionate attention? Is there a deeper reason behind it than the fact that it attracts attention and ratings or is the press for the most part just a commercial-driven entity? I know some news needs to be reported, but I think the press is being a force that is poisonous to society and to children (when it should be a source for knowledge) when it spends so much time on certain individuals. There are hundreds of congresspeople saying and doing things everyday, but because they don’t generate waves, what they say is ignored even though it might be more insightful.

I know it’s hard not to talk about Trump a lot because he’s the US president, but he wouldn’t even be the president if the press (especially the liberal press) didn’t gobble him up so easily.
 
Last edited:
Well… I once got flagged for mentioning this, but have you heard of Operation Mockingbird?
 
The best suggestion would be not to expose him to your children, simple as that.
 
I try not to expose my children, but you see his face pop up on television all the time. He always seems to be saying something horrible about someone else.
 
Well, i barely if ever watch television in the first place, so.
 
You are better off. I try not to watch TV. I prefer to read books.
 
First and foremost it is about making money–that’s why media companies ultimately exist. They put out what will attract the most eyeballs so that the ads they sell will be seen by the most people, which allows them to sell ads for a higher price. If Trump or AOC didn’t generate views, they wouldn’t be reported on as often.

However, by its nature, the media has the means to influence people (which is why they sell advertising). I don’t think the people who run and work at these companies neglect the opportunity to use that influence people according to their views, so long as the bottom line remains healthy of course.
 
Last edited:
A young congresswoman that the conservative press love to hate the way the liberal press loves to hate Trump.

People who wouldn’t matter except the press makes them famous and influential.
 
The media gradually became the mouthpiece for certain groups. Along with a bit of news, are the daily entries about things liberals love. Whatever it is, they report on it and little else. This happened gradually, as it usually does. The local daily newspaper is filled with references to liberal causes and ideas. It is poison. It is not journalism. That went out the window.
 
I wish the broadcast media would show less of vile, nasty Donald Trump.
Click to expand...
We know what you are talking about. We had to put up with the,“vile, nasty,” Obamas and the Clintons in the news all those years.
 
TK421 said:
Why do figures like Donald Trump and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez receive such grossly disproportionate attention?
Click to expand...
Um…because they sell newspapers?

Honestly, journalists write what publishers want and what publishers want is what readers buy.

What do readers buy in 2019? Let us be blunt: Readers (and viewers) choose news that reinforces their biases. After that, they want to read about what the people they work with or socialize with will be gossiping about.

It is my opinion that writers are not immune from our polarization, in which everyone seems to be afraid that conceding any point to a person who “belongs to the opposition” is a betrayal of the Truth, because the opposition is the enemy of the Truth.

I am alarmed by the extent to which this is succeeding in splitting Christians to take sides in these political camps, rather than advocating for the truth and opposing departures from the truth, regardless of who they disagree with to do it. That is not what Pope St. John Paul II did. He had something to say that was in opposition to some part of the platforms of every party in the US, at least, and sometimes lit a third way that differed from both.

I think we also have a lot of journalists who don’t want to be on the “wrong side” of political history. They want to be on the side they hope will win in the end. The problem is that both sides are secular and aren’t moored to the truth that is in the teachings of the Church.
 
Last edited:
It’s definitely not because certain people sell newspapers. Today, newspapers are far more useful for spreading certain ideas. Especially liberal ideas. Newspapers are being bought by a particular target audience, and not by people outside that audience.

Each writer is overseen by an editor. Daily meetings about what goes in happen. No one is an individual. Ideology is what’s king.

By the way, I have zero political affiliation.
 
Last edited:
Yes. But during its operational period, it was specifically aimed at countering Soviet propaganda. From the 1950s to the 1970s, Russian agents were not asleep. The FBI played a role as well. Today, the USSR is gone but new ideas are in play.
 
PetraG said:
everyone seems to be afraid that conceding any point to a person who “belongs to the opposition” is a betrayal of the Truth, because the opposition is the enemy of the Truth.
Click to expand...
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.
 
TK421 said:
Is there a deeper reason behind it than the fact that it attracts attention and ratings
Click to expand...
Yes that is big part but not only part. In past four years many media outlets have permanently destroyed their own reputations putting out known falsehoods, so if it’s about ratings/money it must only be short term ratings and not long term ratings. The only explanation is that they’re so ideological that they subvert their own interests and sacrifice their entire career and reputation for noble mission of making political candidate they don’t like poll number go down 2% for 2 days. Madness
 
Last edited:
From what i understand, it was done for the purpose of “national security”, which was a fair trick during the Cold War. But controlling the flow of information goes further than simply the Soviet Union, it also goes to establish controlled opposition (What we are seeing with the recent elections), promote false narratives and so on.
 
Lotta hate and polemics have poisoned this thread from the start. Let the one without sin cast the first stone.

Am beginning to see CAF as I do the media:

I don’t.
 
National security is not a trick. It goes beyond bombs and bullets. I lived through the Cold War and didn’t lose a second of sleep. Today, it is far more than about elections and politics. It’s about making sure certain ideas get promoted. Those undesired ideas usually appear in local papers.

Yes, newspapers are businesses that need to earn money. But as a recent editorial comment in a local daily paper revealed, some people refuse to buy the paper due to a series of ideologies that make it unacceptable to a portion of the potential readership. All evidence points to the current management abandoning that readership first. The remaining readership is either on board or doesn’t mind what’s being printed.
 
edwest211 said:
I lived through the Cold War and didn’t lose a second of sleep.
Click to expand...
I’m glad you slept well, Ed. I lived in Florida during the Cuban missal crisis and we had to do drills where we hid under our desks in case the bombs went off. I’m still not sure how my desk was going to protect me from a nuclear explosion and I had no idea why all this was scary…but I was scared! Mostly because I didn’t fully understand it all.

There were salesmen that came around trying to sell us bomb shelters and they did a brisk business so SOME people were very scared.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top