Roles and responsibilities of the press

[Amira]

Without getting political here, what do you see as the role of the press?  Do you think the press has (or should have) certain responsibilities? Is "the press" different from "the media" or are they the same thing?  

[hornblower]

I've been thinking about this recently. 

A couple days ago I caught this lecture on the radio & found it very through provoking. Palagummi Sainath won Amnesty International's prize for Global Human Journalism. 

 

"You will never find a great establishment journalist. My argument to you, is that historically, journalism that has had real value, is the journalism of dissent." -- Palagummi Sainath

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/imprisoned-by-profit-media-democracy-1.3601228

Edited June 1, 2016 by hornblower

[gardenmom5]

I think a journalist can only call themselves honest if they refuse to get emotionally invovled  and stay objective.  you can't ask really penetrating questions if you aren't objective.  that's their job - unfortuantley, those that do ask such questions are few and far between. 

 

even more common, is cherry picking facts, selectively editing, and ignoring what doesn't fit a narrative - and presenting what is opinion as fact.  I find this to be fairly common from local stories all the way to international stories.

[regentrude]

The press/media should have the responsibility to present facts accurately, completely, truthfully, as objectively as possible (I realize that every reporting has to be biased; good journalists are aware of that and try not to let their personal bias compromise the accuracy and completeness of the reporting.)

 

ETA: It is, IMO, not the responsibility of the media/press to present the facts in a way that creates a certain reaction of the audience, for example by omitting information so as not to disturb/worry readers.

Edited May 31, 2016 by regentrude

[Amira]

Is one of the roles of the press to hold public figures accountable for their words or actions?

[SparklyUnicorn]

I think ideally they are truthful, accurate, and unbiased, etc.  I get the impression that a lot of it is more about entertainment and bringing in viewers/readers.  Which I get.  They won't stay in business if nobody reads their stuff, but then I never know if they are exaggerating.  Being the subject of news in the past I know stuff gets flubbed up A LOT.  So there is always elements that are not true, but then we don't know which elements those are. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

Is one of the roles of the press to hold public figures accountable for their words or actions?

 

It's a potential role, but I wouldn't necessarily consider it a requirement of the role.

[umsami]

Hmmm.... not sure if they press or media are different. 

 

I think that good journalists do hold public figures and such to account for what they say and do.  They should be fact checkers.  They should ask the tough questions.  They should expose injustices, etc.

 

I think we lost a lot in the country when Reagan eliminated the Fairness Doctrine.  I think we'd be a much more informed nation, and less divided if that still held. 

[umsami]

double post

 

 

Edited May 31, 2016 by umsami

[Pawz4me]

Is one of the roles of the press to hold public figures accountable for their words or actions?

 

Yes, I think so.   I believe that's the main reason freedom of the press is listed in the first amendment.

 

The continued, wholesale vilification of the press we've seen in the past ten years or so seems very worrisome to me.  If you convince a large segment of the population that they shouldn't and can't believe the media -- I don't even want to think about what that opens the door for.

[Amira]

Yes, I think so. I believe that's the main reason freedom of the press is listed in the first amendment.

 

The continued, wholesale vilification of the press we've seen in the past ten years or so seems very worrisome to me. If you convince a large segment of the population that they shouldn't and can't believe the media -- I don't even want to think about what that opens the door for.

It seems to me that a free press who holds public figures and institutions accountable for their words and actions is vital to democracy.

[gardenmom5]

It seems to me that a free press who holds public figures and institutions accountable for their words and actions is vital to democracy.

who holds the press accountable for actually DOING their job of being objective and reporting all sides of a subject, NOT inserting their opinion, and not picking and chosing what they report?

 

if they've been vilified - that's why.

[Amira]

who holds the press accountable for actually DOING their job of being objective and reporting all sides of a subject, NOT inserting their opinion, and not picking and chosing what they report?

 

if they've been vilified - that's why.

Since the media is a huge and multifaceted group of people and institutions, it seems to me that all sides of a subject are reported on. Individual people and institutions have biases, but taken as a whole, I think the media provides a wide variety of viewpoints.

[Bluegoat]

Yes, I agree with all the stuff about accuracy and fact-checking, without bias.

 

I tend not to say journalists should not have bias, but rather that it needs to be self-critical and honest.  And ideally somewhat transparent - in the end we all have bias and its better for it to be in the open.

 

I do think an important job of the media is to dig into institutional structures, look at what is really happening, and so on.  This thing where they just repeat press releases - be it from a political source or a scientific study - IMO is not really journalism.  I think this is why historically we have given the press certan kinds of access and freedom - for example to talk to the government, and prevented people (like the government) from evading their inquiries.  A lot of freedom of information requests come from the press.

 

The lack of ability of the press to do that now is I think very concerning.  There are a lot of reasons - political institutions trying to take power from them, they are trying to work with less and less money, consolidation of media.  As readers we have some blame too - we aren't in many cases willing to pay for that kind of journalism.

[Bluegoat]

Also - I don't think the polarized press so common today is the same at all as the media showing all sides.  If anything, I think it obscures.

[hornblower]

so what do you guys think of the Intenational Consortium of Investigative Journalists? 

They work on many stories & were behind the Panama papers 

 

most recently the Panama Papers. https://www.icij.org/


My concern is not that the journalists are disappearing - I think they're still trying to tell their stories. It's that we the public aren't interested in listening. 

 

[MotherGoose]

I took journalism in high school, 20 years ago. It was impressed upon us that journalists report the facts and do not slant them. It was almost a badge of honor to be an objective reporter. Opinions, we were taught, are for the editorial page. Obviously everyone's opinions slant their views of what happens in some ways, even if they try to prevent it, but today it seems there is no attempt to avoid a slant--and I speak towards both sides of the political divide.

[hornblower]

 today it seems there is no attempt to avoid a slant--and I speak towards both sides of the political divide.

 

It never fails to jar me when people say this .... the idea that there are just two sides. I know what you mean & i'm not picking on you :) It's just one of those amazing things to me that a great democracy has been reduced to picking between vanilla and chocolate. 

[MotherGoose]

 

It never fails to jar me when people say this .... the idea that there are just two sides. I know what you mean & i'm not picking on you :) It's just one of those amazing things to me that a great democracy has been reduced to picking between vanilla and chocolate.

I agree there are definitely more than two, I added that so I wouldn't seem to be taking sides.

[Ausmumof3]

I think social media has changed things. For example, in the past radio networks were the key information source during emergencies like fire and floods. Now social media is much faster so radio only has a role where people's hands are tied and they need to hear the info.

 

I think because the basic information is so easily accessible to be successful commercially traditional media has to value add either by selling opinions or getting more in depth analysis on a situation. Getting more in depth analysis can be costly and many media outlets are struggling for funds so unfortunately that leaves opinion pieces. It also leaves media vulnerable to significant commercial interests I guess.

 

Do humans actually need a commercial media or can we spread our own information? I think we need them in a fact check role but we have to be willing to pay for that in some way shape or form

[Pawz4me]

My concern is not that the journalists are disappearing - I think they're still trying to tell their stories. It's that we the public aren't interested in listening. 

 

 

 

:iagree:

[Rosie_0801]

The owners of our media have been telling our population who to vote for since the first world war. 

 

I'd like a little less  AUSTRALIA NEEDS THIS CANDIDATE and a little more discussion of policy, or bagging the political parties out if they seem not to have any.

 

"Ditch the Witch" is not a headline that should appear in a mainstream newspaper referring to a prime minister, in my opinion. That's a picket sign slogan.

[Bluegoat]

so what do you guys think of the Intenational Consortium of Investigative Journalists? 

 

They work on many stories & were behind the Panama papers 

 

most recently the Panama Papers. https://www.icij.org/

 

 

My concern is not that the journalists are disappearing - I think they're still trying to tell their stories. It's that we the public aren't interested in listening. 

 

 

 

I think we think we are, but in reality we get distracted by bread and circuses.

 

How many of us pay for news any more?

 

How many really make a point of financially supporting independent media, or even seeking it out?

 

For many people, television is their main media source, and it is one of the least likely to give good objective news - they are always limited by their medium which is expensive and needs pictures, and where they must get the viewer to sit right through the whole thing.

 

There is a lot of influence by money, but I don't see many making choices that show they have real commitment to the role of the media.

[Guest]

I have few thoughts that have not already been voiced by others...namely a press bought and paid for by corporations in our current climate is not a "free press."

 

But, too.... there is a thought just out of reach in my mind about the status of education in this country. There is a tremendous amount of people who not only cant tell news from propoganda, they cant even tell news from __outright satire!__ They are missing both the foundational background information about the state of things necessary to understand the implications of news stories AND the reasoning ability to tease apart fact from fiction, half-truth from lie, valid argument from emotional manipulation.

 

I have powerful faith that if the press were more...legitimate?.... it would be an upward spiral. Folks would become more adept at discernment.

 

However. Thats not where we stand right now. So? I dont know. Id say the press has the responsibility not to pander to the lowest common denominator, intellect-wise.

[Bluegoat]

I have few thoughts that have not already been voiced by others...namely a press bought and paid for by corporations in our current climate is not a "free press."

 

But, too.... there is a thought just out of reach in my mind about the status of education in this country. There is a tremendous amount of people who not only cant tell news from propoganda, they cant even tell news from __outright satire!__ They are missing both the foundational background information about the state of things necessary to understand the implications of news stories AND the reasoning ability to tease apart fact from fiction, half-truth from lie, valid argument from emotional manipulation.

 

I have powerful faith that if the press were more...legitimate?.... it would be an upward spiral. Folks would become more adept at discernment.

 

However. Thats not where we stand right now. So? I dont know. Id say the press has the responsibility not to pander to the lowest common denominator, intellect-wise.

 

Yes, although...

 

I read something, years ago, maybe by C.S. Lewis, that has stayed with me to some extent.  It argued that being really immersed in news, as in at the moment happenings, in itself tended to lead to poorer education, because people became too caught up in the now and lost the background knowledge to contextualize it.

 

At the time I thought that why not have both, but seeing the rise of the 24 hour news cycle has really tended to bring it back to me.  Many people think that being so up on news really means they are educated.  They think that reading two polarized sources means their reading is balanced. 

 

When I see current events education taking the place of history in elementary and middle schools I find myself feeling so discouraged about it.  Even in high school, we had a few classes introduced when I was there that counted as "social studies" credits - so you could take them rather than traditional history or poli sci - which were essentially current events, though their titles sounded plausible (global history, global geography.)  But most of the kids had no history, so their insight into the stuff that the class discussed was really limited.

[Guest]

I agree that knowing the news (even if you have an opinion about it lol omg ppl and their opinions!) Is not the same as being educated.

 

I took a current events class in eleventh grade (!) Wherein we read newsweek magazine, out loud, in class....and nothing else. Thats was it. Eleventh grade!

[Bluegoat]

I agree that knowing the news (even if you have an opinion about it lol omg ppl and their opinions!) Is not the same as being educated.

 

I took a current events class in eleventh grade (!) Wherein we read newsweek magazine, out loud, in class....and nothing else. Thats was it. Eleventh grade!

 

So why is it we think people can talk about these things in an educated way without any history?  Or about government without actually knowing how it works?

 

I was part - or overhead in a way - a discussion about Israel/Palestine, and one of the things that struck me was that no one in the conversation could go back in the regional history as far as WWI, much less past the 20th century.

[Guest]

Well everyone cant know everything. Ideally the press would augment what you do know. Not tell you what your opinion about the thing you dont know about should be.

[J-rap]

Is one of the roles of the press to hold public figures accountable for their words or actions?

 

I don't think it has to be, but it is a certain segment of journalism that digs in even further.  So, instead of just reporting news, it is discovering news.

[Ausmumof3]

The owners of our media have been telling our population who to vote for since the first world war.

 

I'd like a little less AUSTRALIA NEEDS THIS CANDIDATE and a little more discussion of policy, or bagging the political parties out if they seem not to have any.

 

"Ditch the Witch" is not a headline that should appear in a mainstream newspaper referring to a prime minister, in my opinion. That's a picket sign slogan.

It's annoying that I can't like your posts...

[Ausmumof3]

So why is it we think people can talk about these things in an educated way without any history? Or about government without actually knowing how it works?

 

I was part - or overhead in a way - a discussion about Israel/Palestine, and one of the things that struck me was that no one in the conversation could go back in the regional history as far as WWI, much less past the 20th century.

I don't love everything about BBC but I like that they often have a background article linked to the main news story that explains the history of what's going on.

[Ausmumof3]

This book is interesting for exploring some of these issues

 

http://www.randomhouse.com.au/books/andrew-fowler/the-war-on-journalism-9780857986849.aspx

 

And a link to an interview with the author that summarises some of the main points

 

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-04/tapp-why-journalism-is-in-decline/6670076

[Ausmumof3]

The other trend that I think is somewhat concerning is that online content is more likely to be sourced through social media than by going directly to the news sources. This would be fine except we all know about the Facebook Algorithm thingy. People see more of the stuff they normally click on. They are less likely to be exposed to opinions that run counter to their own. This means that a) they don't get challenged and b) they may think their views are more widely held than they actually are. It's also concerning that there are suggestions that certain types of stories are being suppressed by social media outlets

[umsami]

Saw this today and reminded me once again to be grateful for freedom of the press, even though I don't always agree with the slant/journalism/ethics.

 

http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2016/06/02/480328254/in-egypts-broad-crackdown-prominent-journalists-are-now-facing-trial

 

"For 75 years, the journalists union has been the front line for the defense of freedom of expression in Egypt. Sometimes it has been criticized for not doing enough. And today, its members say, it's under attack. More than 20 journalists are currently imprisoned, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists, and Amnesty International calls it "the most brazen attack on the media" in Egypt in decades.

 

Last month, the union's building was raided by dozens of security force members with arrest warrants for two journalists accused of staging anti-government protests, among other things. The union got angry, called for sit-ins and demanded that the interior minister resign.

 

The leaders of the Press Syndicate say they are now being punished. They're accused of fabricating the news related to the arrests and hiding the two journalists from authorities."

[Guest]

Egypt :(

[prairiewindmomma]

On NPR this week, there's been a discussion about generational differences... Yesterday's piece on 45 year olds discussed how media has changed in our lifetime. We've gone from morning papers and evening broadcasts to a 24 hour news cycle.  What struck me about the discussion, in reflection of my own life, is how sensationalistic and polarizing "journalism" has become. I agree with many of the points made above---there's a lack of putting current news pieces into context, we often hear polarizing opposite views, and we are focused with the latest story rather than perhaps what is most important. I think that "the press" and "the media" should be two separate things as they should have separate objects but we've found a co-mingling of the two.  Fox News, I think, is an excellent example of media purporting to be press.