Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

For some journalists, idealism trumps integrity.


sort by: page size:

Journalists, idealists, pick one

Oh, they are real journalists alright. They are just short of certain morals and ethics.

Please: name some names. Your description of the ideal journalist is fairly good, but doesn't really tell us anything about the real world.

Why is it easier to filter through the agendas of journalists instead of the experts themselves? As professional mouthpieces, journalists are more likely to have agendas, not less. Recent history has show that journalist are more interested in activism than is integrity.

I feel like what you're saying is true in some platonic ideal, but it's very far from reality.


Most of us hold ourselves to higher standards than a Journalist does.

Reporters might miss the God complex that Journalism class gave them.

I don't see integrity as something specific to being a journalist. It's something specific to being a good one. Just like it's specific to being a good...anything.

She could well be a terrible journalist. I disagree from what I've seen, but you've seen otherwise. Cool.

But saying she's not a journalist doesn't make sense to me. She's paid to be a journalist by Businessweek. Therefore, she's a journalist, in my book.


Journalistic integrity. What a concept!

Your ideal is a Unicorn, and if it existed, it probably wouldn't be able to find employment as a journalist.

Instead of evenly distributed journalists who are a perfect match for whatever yours or anyone's ideal happens to be, what we get is a group of media organizations with a range of social and political goals, who tend to be staffed with journalists whose ideals are approximately aligned, and also a bunch of schmucks.


Journalists are pretty honest about what they do if you listen to them talk candidly about their profession. It's not really about reporting reality or facts it's more they see themselves are a class above the regular people who have a moral obligation to make sure we think and believe the right things we're supposed to for what they consider the greater good.

Not saying if that's the right thing to do or not but personally it's not something I'd ever pay for.


It's sad that journalists think so highly of themselves.

I feel like there is a real distinction as far as the state of "journalism".

I think there are a lot of people doing real good work ethically and professionally.

I think there are a lot of people who don't do a good job.

The thing is I think most people decided the two dependent on if it fits their point of view... so the whole situation is muddied.


I'm not really putting much on the table but journalist are in my low tier of respect, if there's any.

There's so many instances of abuse, lying and laziness that seems low standards are common through the profession and countries.

In general I tend to see them as activist, with very few exceptions of people that tries to approach truth.

Nowadays it really doesn't matter if they write for a local newspaper or WAPO, it's just so common that your default approach should be looking at every piece as propaganda.


It's hard to be a decent journalist, sometimes too hard.

Being a journalist is not an endorsement of character.

You can be a criminal and a journalist, a thief and a journalist, a horrible person and a journalist.


What do you think journalists and reporters do? Is their work immoral?

Because actual journalists have standards to abide

Are there journalists you trust?

Steady on.

The journalists I know do indeed meet society's expectations for fairness and accuracy, and make calls and pound beats, but there are also a lot more people who project themselves as journalists who are a long way from this ideal. Sadly market pressures mean there are a lot of the latter about.

next

Legal | privacy