Freedom of the press

[Bruce]

Jounalistic integrity is dead. It's all about being the first to get the most sensational story published, getting the highest ratings, selling the most newspapers, and landing the most high-profile interviews. Facts, truth, and ethics are completely meaningless.

There are no checks and balances in the media. The media groups do not police each other as they should. There is no one to corroborate the stories, no penalties for misquoting, no punishment for publishing half the story or mis-representing science. They can publish rumors and fiction as facts and evidence, and no one can stop them. Politically biased journalism is rampant. They can publish the one minute fraction of the story to support their political agenda, and then ignore everything else.

They can invade a court room, record allegations and biased testiments, and then pass judgement on the defendant before the trial even begins. They can publish rubbish medical, scientific, political, and historical stories from "experts" without checking their credentials or doing anything at all to make sure they aren't feeding the public complete nonsense from a fraud or con-artist.

They have the greatest power of influence in politics, public opinion, and culture; yet they go un-checked. Their reports are cited as evidence in all forms of debate, though their reports are the least peer reviewed. They are the greatest perpetuants of mass hysteria, myths, and lies; second only to religion. When it comes to being called out, held accountable, or facing retribution they are practically untouchable.

The only thing worse than having a free press is not having a free press.

 

[Hutch]

Nice rant, Bruce--I'm giving it a 7.4 on the Bruce Rant Scale.

Now, at what time were you speaking of? The 1840's? The 1860's? the 1890's? The 1920's? The 1950's?


Bet you can find similar reasons to rant for each of those eras too.

Still, if one keeps an open mind but avoids letting their brains fall on the floor, there is news to be found here and there...and at least the comic pages are OK.

 

[Brown]

Is journalistic integrity dead? No.

Is it getting harder to find, especially in the so-called "mainstream" news media (especially television)? Yes.

Hutch correctly suggests that newspapers have long been accused of lacking integrity. Even today, titans like the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal are accused of being shills for various political wings.

In the early days of television, and in the waning days of the "Golden Age" of radio, there was an impulse toward integrity. Men like Fred Friendly and Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite moved things in that direction.

But lately, the principles of honor and reputation don't seem to be as widely held, or held in as high a regard. Still, there are quite a few journalists and editors out there who feel that getting a story right is their most important concern.

 

[Smike]

I don't trust any news reporting agency (especially newspapers), other than the BBC Today programme and the BBC news website.

Even they're not perfect, but they're not bad.

 

[Random]

I get most of my news from the Daily Show and the Onion. I know they’re fake, but they are still a lot more accurate than Faux and the alphabet networks.

 

[hgc]

Journalistic Integrity is not dead. It's down on the ranch in Crawford, clearing brush, choking on pretzels.

 

[kalen]

I agree with what you said, but I wouldn't apply it to the entire media industry.

One thing you left out, and in some sense the origin of your complaints, is that most of the media we see is owned by only a handful of people and corporations. The stories that are presented by these media outlets are meant to push the agenda of their owners. You can guess what happens when all the owners have pretty much the same agenda.....you guessed it - a rant by Bruce. That, and an ill-informed populace.

 

[Bruce]

You can guess what happens when all the owners have pretty much the same agenda.....you guessed it - a rant by Bruce.