Responsible Journalism?

Jolie77

Jolie77

New Member
Premium Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Messages
8,726
Reaction score
9
This came up in my mind after I have been seeing how the media take the liberty of saying one thing or another. As we all know, the media has a tendency to put one-sided stories that are posted everywhere. At most, we would see that there are some stories that can be unbiased but in retrospect, is it also responsible journalism when it is remotely possible?

Granted, responsible journalism should make an effort to evaluate and verify the credibility of any statements presented before publication is authorized and, in fairness, should not be just summarily dismissed. However, the reality of journalism is that many reporters or editors are usually obvious supporters of the class of the powerful and influential and serving these interests. That may explain why recently local submitted letters to the editor are not published.

Sure, We may have the freedom of speech but it also comes with responsibility. Sometime, I have to wonder, is it being over abused when there are journalists/reporters/etc out there that may put the edge with their words?

About television, what do you think about the sensationalization of news, and do you think it is instilling people with unnecessary fear of their surroundings?

Just how much influence does it portray that bestows upon on us? I can say this much - It does have a huge role of influencing many other people; culture and the likes of that.
 
If it doesn't threaten our well-being, its just news and passes past our ears. If it does, we talk about it often, making moods dreary and anxious over the anticipation that the same bad news might happen to them. I think that's sad cause as long as people do that, they're getting worried over a lot of things that they shouldn't be worried about. Living a fearful life is not a good life to live, but as long as we continue to allow journalists to influence the way we think, it's gonna be like that until something changes the way media is presented.
 
My friend and I were just talking about that today whenever we werent constantly interrupted by our children...she was telling me how a 14 year old boy got beaten to death near her home a few months ago and how worried she is about for her two tots. She was telling me that she wants to move away from her area. In my opinion, I think her area is very nice and probably a heck a lot safer than my area. She admitted that it was the first time something like that happened in her area and right away, she wanted to move away. She said how she was always hearing on the news about gangs and what kids do to each other. Apparently the reports of the story about the 14 year old boy made it sound like her area was infested with gangs, making her paranoid. I have always gone through that area and not once I have ever seen any gang activity. I told her that it seems like nowadays kids have it tougher or it seems like there is too much quick information from the media and we are hearing about different incidents a lot more than before. Then we got into a discussion about whether it was good or bad. I told her that it is nice to have access to what's happening around the word but probably too much of it at once is probably not a good thing. I felt this situation was a perfect example of the consequences from media oversensationalizing this murder.
 
MoonDrifter said:
If it doesn't threaten our well-being, its just news and passes past our ears. If it does, we talk about it often, making moods dreary and anxious over the anticipation that the same bad news might happen to them. I think that's sad cause as long as people do that, they're getting worried over a lot of things that they shouldn't be worried about. Living a fearful life is not a good life to live, but as long as we continue to allow journalists to influence the way we think, it's gonna be like that until something changes the way media is presented.
Click to expand...

That's the problem, you see.

Those irresponsible journalists prey on opinions like yours. They'll twist news to make money. We need honesty. This is not about making news dreary. I don't look for journalists to give me "Tea Time" news, I look for journalism I can get involved in with and that means controversy and politics.
 
There is nothing new about corruption of journalism. If anything to say about existence of 'responsible journalism' I can say we already have right now, Michael Moore and John Pilger. They differ from each other in focus, Moore looks at how consumerism while Pilger looks at war and politics.
Responsible jounrnalism as a subject is not new either, but interestingly they tend to define it as a 'correct method' of doing news reporting outlined here which, in a round about way explains why we only see what they want us to see... so -called by the guidelines of maximum impact with least amount of reading, to them - that's good jounralism!, so it is going to be VERY hard to see any 'responsible journalism' which you describe, but its not non-existent there are a few of those 'stirrers' heck it is slowly becoming a tread in such a way to uncover frauds, thefts or bad consumer goods as evaluated, often these are shown in 'consumers beware' types of TV shows. Again though, one might say this is another form of 'slick advertising' methodology, it might be I guess that, again this depends on how far does this responsbile jounralism is taken.
 
I realized that I like Michael Moore and some of his interesting documents.

I was surprised to learn that Flint, Michigan is near a ghost town. I think that you might be interested to watch on DVD which called, "Roger & Me."

My mother's friend is a Republican, and he was shocked to watch the DVD. I think that it is going to happen in some towns - just like a ripple effect slowly. It's the former president who screwed up big times, and he is laughing himself for something else that never look back what he had done in his terms.

Another issue, I may think that there is something wrong with our government's economy that keep raising more problems. I feel like that there is a powerful hacker inside the government system, and there is no document comes up yet.

In fact, I am shocking that Hillary Clinton is negotiating with China for more imports in our country recently. What the hell she was thinking? She is supposed to help our own people and do something to sell them to the countries. I haven't seen a journalist to bring it up on the news.

For the media news, there are always come up with big bucks doing a dirty business with no respect for people's privacy. Oh, running for a president's elections for media news that cost trillions of dollars - I would say a few trillions of dollars. That money would have given to our people for the health insurance. The media companies took the money, and what they do with their money? I thought that some journalists' job to find out where the money went.
 
C.C.Sinned said:
the first person that comes to mind is - Stephen Glass
Click to expand...

Royale said:
Remember Rathergate?

Killian documents controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

CC Sinned and Royale - Thanks for the links. It was interesting to read about those 2 journalists.

shel90 said:
I felt this situation was a perfect example of the consequences from media oversensationalizing this murder.
Click to expand...

That is why I was questioning the issue of responsible journalism. Granted, there are some things that should have been portrayed one way or another but when it comes to over-sensationalizing a story; That is like asking to bait more gullibles that will believe everything of what the media says.

As corrupt as it may sound, Garnering the attention to the mainstream is what the problem lies ahead not because of how they twist things out of the picture but because it is up to us to diffuse or to recognize the errors of one being a responsible journalist.
 
What is new is the control of all media by a handful of large corporations. The FCC allowed a few corporations to buy up all of the media. Sure there's NPR but there are fewer and fewer independent sources.

Helen Thomas is the last real journalist. She always asks the hard questions.
 
sallylou said:
What is new is the control of all media by a handful of large corporations. The FCC allowed a few corporations to buy up all of the media. Sure there's NPR but there are fewer and fewer independent sources.

Helen Thomas is the last real journalist. She always asks the hard questions.
Click to expand...

I am very surprised. I didn't know that Helen was the last one as a honest woman. I bet that she wanted G.B. to go to hell.
 
For a long time now, I just don't believe what I read in newspapers any more. A lot of it is simply not true.
 
sallylou said:
What is new is the control of all media by a handful of large corporations. The FCC allowed a few corporations to buy up all of the media. Sure there's NPR but there are fewer and fewer independent sources.
Click to expand...

Believe me, I know. :|
 
Rarely, you hear of "Good News". The media has become the gossip source nowadays. You rarely hear of "Good News", it is mainly bad news or a gossip feed line.
 
and 'good news' tend to come last before ending the news broadcast to remind you the world is still good place...but not really its more of a calming effect as a way of seeking coerion and consesus
 
Helen Thomas is still rocking the White House. Bush the younger would never call on Helen and even made her move to the back of the press corp area. With the new administration, her place and status are restored. Helen's still asking the hard questions and the questions that the President doesn't want to answer. Go Helen!

Helen Thomas participated with Stephen Colbert in the Press Corp dinner when Bush was still in office. If you missed it, check out the transcript and it's worth watching footage just to see the look on Bush's face.
 
sallylou said:
Helen Thomas is still rocking the White House. Bush the younger would never call on Helen and even made her move to the back of the press corp area. With the new administration, her place and status are restored. Helen's still asking the hard questions and the questions that the President doesn't want to answer. Go Helen!

Helen Thomas participated with Stephen Colbert in the Press Corp dinner when Bush was still in office. If you missed it, check out the transcript and it's worth watching footage just to see the look on Bush's face.
Click to expand...

I love her too! Believe it or not, she will be 89 this Tuesday! :eek3: She has covered the White House since she started covering the John Fitzgerald Kennedy presidential campaign in 1060. It means she has asked at least ten U.S. Presidents questions during her career. :shock:
 
Royale said:
I love her too! Believe it or not, she will be 89 this Tuesday! :eek3: She has covered the White House since she started covering the John Fitzgerald Kennedy presidential campaign in 1060. It means she has asked at least ten U.S. Presidents questions during her career. :shock:
Click to expand...

Wow! That women is a lot older than I thought! :lol:
 
Back
Top