Journalistic Ethics

[Werewolf]

You know...

If you write a paper in college you're expected to cite your sources.
If you do research you're expected to document your experiments.
If the government arrests you and tries you for a crime even it has to present evidence to that effect.

BUT
A journalist can just say something with out citing the source, the documents or the evidence and we're all just supposed to believe it.

There's something just wrong about that. REAL WRONG!

[Guest]

"Journalist" and "Ethics" don't go together.

That is why they came up with the Kacomani term " Journalistic License" . Don't mean nothing, has no principles, ethics or value...the serfs don't know any differnt 'cause they learned about the term through the media.


Just like the term "Kacomani" - I probably spelled it wrong...but with " Journalistic License", and use of this medium...hey lookee I just invented a new word. *smirk*

[Bemidjiblade]

Journalists become journalists to "change the world".
So whatever they do in pursuit of their agenda is acceptable and right.
No matter how many innocents die.
Machiavellanism such as this is one of the reason i'm beginning to see teh profession as evil.

[Standing Wolf]

Fortunately, the internet is changing all that. It's as radical a paradigm shift as the invention of the printing press.

Journalists, of course, will be the last to find out about it.

[Fjolnirsson]

I clicked this topic because I wanted to see what the joke was.

[K Frame]

I became a journalist to get a job.

There are significant differences between writing a paper in college and writing an article about extremely sensitive topics.

[Werewolf]

There are significant differences between writing a paper in college and writing an article about extremely sensitive topics.

And - Pray Tell - what might those differences be?

Why should we believe what a journalist says when he/she will not back it up with sources? The proof is in the pudding as they say. The word of some self appointed watch dog of society means little with out hard evidence.

[Guest]

Why should we believe what a journalist says when he/she will not back it up with sources? The proof is in the pudding as they say. The word of some self appointed watch dog of society means little with out hard evidence.

Noone is forcing you to believe a word of what a journalist says. Journalism is ENTERTAINMENT for profit, and it always has been. If you want academicly sourced documents then your are free to check out the AMPLE academic journals that supply them.

Freedom of speach means that the press can more-or-less print anything they feel like printing, it also means that you have lots of choices in what you choose to believe/read.

[Werewolf]

Noone is forcing you to believe a word of what a journalist says.

That is true, of course. The problem is that the whole profession expects us to believe what they say. They place themselves on a pedestal. The law even protects them when sources should be divulged in order to right a wrong or prosecute a crime. Why is this?

Journalism is ENTERTAINMENT for profit, and it always has been.

Well - they're not all clowns and talking heads but most of them are and the really famous ones are so into themselves they don't even realize it.

If you want academicly sourced documents then your are free to check out the AMPLE academic journals that supply them.

Unfortunately academics don't write sourced documents covering current events in a very timely manner.

So where do we get information on current events that is trustworthy?

If the law forced journalists to cite their sources to keep 'em honest then the media would be a reasonable choice. Unfortunately the present state of affairs makes the journalistic option far from optimal.

Freedom of speach means that the press can more-or-less print anything they feel like printing, it also means that you have lots of choices in what you choose to believe/read.

Please! The problem is that it is difficult to believe anything that comes out of the mainstream media and even harder to believe the tripe that masquerades as news from  internet sources.

With the 2nd Amendment and the RKBA comes the responsibility to use those arms wisely. Doesn't freedom of the press imply a responsibilty to be accurate and truthful? If not then freedom of the press is a hollow concept and the 1st Amendment is a joke.

I believe - and I may be wrong - that up until the electronic age most journalists did in fact feel a responsibility towards the truth (there were some notable exceptions but everyone new who they were back then - can anyone say yellow journalism) but that somewhere along the line they lost it. For the life of me I just cannot fathom how or why...

I for one do not believe that freedom of the press means freedom to lie, decieve, manipulate and gate keep.

DO ANY OF YOU?

[grampster]

cacamamie =  That crap is maimed.

[Moondoggie]

I think the primary problem with journalists is that they have managed to elevate their 1st Admendment rights to a level of absolute/unassailable.  I don't think their sources should be sacrosanct if the information provided to a journalist was obtained illegally, improperly, or in violation of a non-disclosure agreement.  I recognize the "watchdog" role of the media, but I think there should be some ethical constraints on what they publish.

I think it's kinda the same principle as power/absolute power.  Add in greed, lust, envy and the rest of the package and you get what we've got today.

I also believe the internet/"blogosphere" will revolutionize the dissemination of information.  Most of the major news organizations won't be adept enough to adapt...they will perish.

[Waitone]

Once upon a time in a country far, far away "journalists" journaled events of the day.

Now a day they are participants in the events of the day.  You can't do color commentary on the game while playing in the game.  

Today's "journalists" are propagandists and are not worthy of the protection of part of the first amendment.