It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Journalism

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 04:29 AM
link   
here is a blog about the role of journalism in a democracy.
I just quote the two different types discussed in it to show the importance of good journalism in every community governed by people, or rules.


The truth is in my opinion somewhere in the middle, not because we were too stupid, but because we aren't told what is actually going on. Politicians lie to journalists. Journalists lie to us, the people.
It's one of those bad prices you have to pay if you want to make money with your profession you have to deliver what the public wants to hear, or you'll starve.
Not the best researched facts can change how people feel about a topic.

Scientific American

Yet we live in times where we need good journalists, investigative journalists, uncomfortable to those in power.
The elite is the ones in power. As soon as you are the guy in power you are the elite and someone has to be allowed to watch and report what you're doing.
You can pick the paper, the whatever source of information you like, but those making the opinions should also know, you sign what you write with your name. You can and will be held responsible.
That's us, we the people might have "just" the power of consumers, but if we ignore you, you're done.
Report with integrity, read with responsibility and let's not forget journalists are closer to being ordinary people than those we both have to keep an eye on.



edit on 5-3-2017 by Peeple because: Oops




posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 04:54 AM
link   
Its all propaganda .
Designed to keep the public stupid and firmly under control .
There is neither ethics nor truth put out by media outlets .



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 05:08 AM
link   
a reply to: VengefulGhost

There are also other journalists, now with the internet and all... and it is true, it doesn't hurt to see who runs the "media outlet" I am consuming and if I want to support that.



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 05:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Peeple

IMO the press should call it as they see it, and if they can't then shame on those who can't see two sides of the story.

The Murdoch press swings so far right they hit a foul ball. I'm looking for a career in journalism and now i'm thinking about sticking to sports reporting because the stats and results don't lie and aren't biased. If a team made more incompletes than the other team and I can say it because eyes don't usually lie and neither do eyewitness reports and stats.

Coming from a nation where the Murdoch press dominates I can safely say most of their stories include 'a source named X told Y that' and so forth and even I find that unprofessional-and I'm not qualified. Call it as you see it even if the boss threatens to fire you for doing so because you don't see things their way or doing your job then it's high time writers walk off the job.


edit on 5-3-2017 by Thecakeisalie because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 07:18 AM
link   
My problem with journalism is that the writer tends to instill their own personal opinions into facts.

If someone likes or dislikes Trump....we don't need to hear their opinions on it with their spin.
Just write the news and let it speak for itself.

When did journalism teach that everybody wants and needs to hear what the journalist and the publication they work for thinks??

News is never the problem...who delivers it (with their BS inserted into it) IS the problem.

"The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers."
Thomas Jefferson



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 07:22 AM
link   
Somehow Lippman equates politicians with the elite,

elected representatives aren't the wealthy elite, they are supposed to protect us from them.



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 08:48 AM
link   
I guess like anything else in life too. All good things get abused by some and turn into something bad. And lets face it. We are human, we will be baised no matter what. So it is up to you to decide what you want to believe in a story and what not. a reply to: Peeple



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 03:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

Somehow Lippman equates politicians with the elite,

elected representatives aren't the wealthy elite, they are supposed to protect us from them.
I equate politicians with the elite as well, certainly in this day and age. Let's be frank, most politicians don't know what it is to live as a COMMON, i.e "peasant," person. Those who might have been so far removed for so long, they have no real frame of reference.



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Peeple

We need news like wikileaks.. 100 percent objective news and verifiable...



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: SpeakerofTruth

Politicians are rich, the oligarchs are wealthy. Big difference.



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 06:51 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

I am just saying, I can understand how he tossed politicians in with the elite because I do the same. When I say "elite," I am generally speaking about those who hold a position of power and have a significant net worth
edit on 5-3-2017 by SpeakerofTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: SpeakerofTruth

Okay, and I think I was making a distinction between simple politicians and the actual elite; wealthy bankers and industrial tycoons that run everything on the planet.

You've seen the film Network I presume.

The military, police and law makers are minions of the state, the deep state, the shadow gubment, what ever.

The enforcement and legislative branches of the gubment are set against the people, instead of protecting us, they protect big business.


Edit: Sorry about that, I think we agree, just stuck on semantics.

enjoyed your thread about whether to stay around, I appreciate your discourse.
edit on 5-3-2017 by intrptr because: Edit:



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 07:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: SpeakerofTruth


You've seen the film Network I presume.

.
Oh, yes. "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!!" Lol. It's a classic as far as I am concerned.



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 07:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Peeple

Journalism wasn't taught in the field of creative arts when I was in school.

Heck, the word journalism means to make an accurate account of a given situation.

Making a post so I can come back later, sorry for the knee-jerk.



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Something most people cannot see past but should, is the journalists problem with conforming to the notion that all things have "two sides."

The Hegelian notion of polarized systems of expression are exclusive suffocates nearly all modern journalists because they have been raised in a world where everything is black or white and that's it.

There are a great many "stories" for which there is no "other side" but journalists have been so mind controlled is they have to present the "other side" of the story even if it does not exist. This creates conflicts within those who are of a lessor mind, they will often concoct a strawman opposing polarity which fills the need for the other polarity. During the occupy wallstreet silliness journalists defined the "banks are in power" side by talking to nut cases and morons at these rally's using them as "the other side of the story." "One occupy wallstreeter says, "screw banks, the elite are nothing but scum." This kind of "other side" representation, which happens all the time in modern journalism, is criminal.

Worse, the lessor journalism mind seeks out bumper sticker answers to fill in questions on one side of the polarity or the other. VICE is a system designed perfectly around the notion of adding a sound bite to make a point about a complex problem or system, "the EPA says regulatory systems are in place to protect the public" when asked about whether they system is flawed." That's modern journalism in a nutshell, that line is garbage, but it is enough for modern readers to understand ALL of the issues surrounding the EPA.

Life is complex, that's the beauty of it. The fact that modern journalists have 30 seconds to get a video story out, or 2 weeks to get a written words story out is criminal on every level. The fact they feel the need to take sides by shading their Hegelian polarities is criminal, and the fact that our complex lives have been reduced to "tweets" as something that defines a story is obscene. Worse, modern journalists were raised in the criminal educational system which was designed to create this very effect, so the poorly educated are under the delusion their education entitles them to "form" public opinion due to their superior story sorting skills.

If you think I'm, take a moment to sum up your year in 30 words or less. Better yet, sum up your week in a tweet. Due full and complete justice to all of your feelings, your interactions, your fears, your concerns, your joys. Go....



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Text
a reply to: crankyoldman

Au contraire, we rarely get the WHOLE story, or as you say, the "other side." We have a media that feeds us half truths at best, and have for decades. Where you get this "the media is trying to hard to cover both sides of every story" is beyond me. I don't see that at all. Media tends to be very biased in one direction or the other.
As a former Journalism major, I'll tell you something else, this stuff we see now is news ANALYSIS, not news BROADCASTING. Big difference
edit on 5-3-2017 by SpeakerofTruth because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
7

log in

join