Yes, and contrary to popular belief the vast majority of journalists seek truth in their reporting. Take a look at the Society for Professional Journalists ethics page: https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp
A journalist should only be as good as their reputation. I was taught my reputation was my only asset as journalist. If I couldn’t be trusted to tell the truth of my experiences what good was I to my community as a reporter?
Unfortunately, folks don’t value the truth and bastards like Tucker Carlson, Rachel Maddow, et. al. can assume the mantle of journalist and spout nonsense without repercussions. Instead they are rewarded. They don’t represent journalism or its intended goals. They are showmen and strawmen out to puppet propaganda.
All that said, Journalist’s also have an obligation to reduce harm. There are instances where the truth can cause more damage. As an example it is best practice to not name children or victims when reporting crimes. The public record is long and never forgets and no one should be forced to have the misdeeds of others haunt them though the web, forever.
I sometimes wish Journalism had requirements like Law or Medicine that must be met before you could take the title. It is so easy for bloggers and social media warriors to pick up the title and it has lost all meaning. What passes for Journalism today makes me sick more often than not
Carlson and Maddow are entertainment for partisans. They hook their audiences by weaving captivating narratives out of half truths and sometimes outright lies. I’ve tried to get my mother off Maddow and I think she is at least taking Maddow with a grain of salt.
John Oliver also does this. I like some of his material because it brings to light an ill that doesn’t get enough attention. But there have just been too many times when I have some familiarity with the subject matter and I start spotting areas where he stretches the truth.
imho they should not tell the “truth” but verifiable facts.
… without “forgetting” relevant facts that can help readers build their opinion.
Yes. If they want a job where they can tell something other than the truth, they should look into writing fiction.
yes,of course
If the truth hurts, you’re in the wrong
Not if you work for a corporate news outlet, apparently.
“Truth” is an idea, something subject to interpretation by way of ideology, which seems to me one of the big problems in journalism today (and in the world at large). Facts are more objective, and i think that any good consumer of the news will not rely exclusively on the interpretations of facts (and sometimes not even facts) by others for forming their own awareness.
There does need to be some level of interpretation, though. Raw facts often lack an important “why” component that can mislead a poorly informed observer. For instance, white supremacists love to cite black crime statistics. Those statistics aren’t necessarily wrong, but they need the context of centuries of racial oppression. Or comparing how much women make to how much men make. There is a significant wage gap, so some people point to that as evidence of outright sexism. But it nearly disappears once you correct for different life choices (e.g. different sectors, time off for children), so others say there should be no action. The reality lies in the middle. Society is structured in such a way as to create this wage gap. Some things are relatively simple, like maternal leave but not paternal leave. Other things are more complicated, like predominantly female sectors usually paying less. And sometimes, yes, you do run into outright sexism.
There does need to be some level of interpretation, though.
I don’t necessarily disagree with you, however…
For instance, white supremacists love to cite black crime statistics.
Because the interpretation they give those statistics justifies their ideology. (As you know)
What is important is to make clear the interrelation of facts, and not to merely present obtuse statistics. One might call this interpretation, and i won’t argue semantics. Once the interrelation of things is known on a factual basis, the range of seemingly valid interpretations narrows considerably, increasing the likelihood that an individual can make meaningful judgements on a given topic. This degree of information ofc takes time, but given how much time I’ve seen ideologues babble nonsense and call it news, i’d actually be inclined to say time isn’t the issue.
I’ve often wondered why this question is seldom asked of historians.
From what I understand, modern historians are much better about this. You’ll see this in the approach of historians from a majority culture who are combing back through established narratives and dismantling misleading ones. But historians in the past have absolutely taken liberties to trash people or civilizations they personally disapproved of, never mind thinking through their personal biases.
If you ask this on the basis of high school textbooks being used today, I would mention that they lag far behind the practices of modern historians. Although teachers in these settings will often use primary and secondary sources to illustrate the pitfalls of relying solely on the latter and other further removed materials.
Like with the journalist question, many people take on the title without the qualifications or ethics, merely using it to promote their slant, which I will grant often makes for a more exciting story.
deleted by creator
Yes, and I believe most do. But there are always going to be those few that cave to money from hostile governments and corporations.
You living in the same universe as I do? Cuz most journalist here ain’t telling the truth
