Journalism is the act of hunting for truth. I don't think any reputable outlet goes into an investigation knowing what the outcome is going to be. Journalists are good at looking at evidence and identifying possible outcomes and many times their assumptions turn out to be true after rigorous research, but this is different then knowing what an outcome of a story is going to be.
So what you're saying is that you think journalism is nothing more than untangling the confidence game and reacting to rather than trying to verify claims?
Journalism's duty is to be truthful and impartial--truthful on matters of fact, impartial on matters of opinion. From there it gets complicated, of course.
In a debate you'd be right, but journalism is in principle half truthseeking, half storytelling, and in practice more the latter. The author's motivations are a critical piece of evidence.
To be fair, journalists are meant to also use their own knowledge and judgement to assess the relative validity of sources and frame the story in a way that communicates the truth as they see it (as opposed to just uncritically reflecting whatever their sources told them)
This is also why journalism is an actual field of study, not just a word to make oneself sound important. Assessing the credibility of sources is one of many very hard problems legitimate journalists face, and as a whole we have some obligations and expectations in place to ensure due diligence is followed.
Which isn't perfect, but certainly a good foil for situations like this.
But aren't all journalists supposed to be fact checkers? The idea seems redundant unless it is some admission that journalism has fundamentally changed.
Journalists are just people. Reliable journalism occurs when those people try their best to provide accurate information, and when they make a mistake they correct it. That's it. You can't expect perfection from people.
A lot of journalism is not straight lying, but er, creative interpretations of events. If anything it's a skill to be able to take a neutral news event and spin it towards a political goal or to sway public opinion in a certain direction.
I suspect you don't have a strong understanding of how journalism works. A journalist fact-checking a story is more often a giveaway they are a conscientious journalist working for a legitimate organization. Getting the story right is a sacred thing for real journalists who know that not doing so opens them up to being called out in the public sphere for spreading untruth. Extensive fact-checking is not only critical to maintaining a reputation, it probably provides some kind of legal cover.
Truth might not be the best word, but the intention is about factual and empirical observations. So news/journalism is X happened at Y, backed up with as much sources as the journalist can muster.
Newspapers aren't about truth. Newspapers are a business that runs on advertising, and advertising makes more money when the news is sensationalist. If you talk to a journalist then don't be surprised if you are then heavily mis-characterised and slandered. The journalist isn't there to tell your story, they're there to tell the story that will get the most clicks.
Truth-finding and ethics in journalism is really interesting.
"The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_of_journalism#Codes_of_p...
But what if "providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues" requires lying/manipulation?
I've worked with journalists and like anything there were different types of approaches to journalism like there are different approaches to any human endeavor. The ones with the most integrity started with an idea for a story but did their best to follow the evidence, and never discarded facts because they didn't fit their preconceived notions.
The ones that people are typically frustrated with but get the most clicks from 'their' side, are the ones that have an idea for a story, write the conclusion first, and then only include facts that fit that conclusion. Alternatively they discard an article if the facts overwhelmingly disagree with their original conclusion.
Journalism should present things in the correct context, and contextualize statements, situations, etc.
If feels like you're accusing journalists of lying to push an agenda, which is, by definition, not journalism. Journalism is about informing. Not saying everyone does it perfectly, in the same way you can do bad science that is still technically science.
reply