striker42
Well-known member
Bravo to the AP for reporting this. Let's hope they reflect on it instead of just averting their gaze, as we so many here do.
https://apnews.com/article/politics...-journalists-915025bcab8f5910381eee11b5cb9d17
The study defines five core principles or beliefs that drive most journalists: keep watch on public officials and the powerful; amplify voices that often go unheard; society works better with information out in the open; the more facts people have the closer they will get to the truth; and it’s necessary to spotlight a community’s problems to solve them.
Yet the survey, which asked non-journalists a series of questions designed to measure support for each of those ideas, found unqualified majority support for only one of them. Two-thirds of those surveyed fully supported the fact-finding mission.
Half of the public embraced the principle that it’s important for the media to give a voice to the less powerful, according to the survey, and slightly less than half fully supported the roles of oversight and promoting transparency.
Less than a third of the respondents agreed completely with the idea that it’s important to aggressively point out problems. Only 11% of the public, most of them liberals, offered full support to all five ideas.
This was the only way I could get the image to show up
[tw]1382357217467371525[/tw]
There's one problem with media coverage that overshadows all others to me. How do you decide what news is important enough to report? You can have the most objective, fact based coverage of the stories you cover but if you're biased in what stories you decide to cover, you're accomplishing nothing but causing more problems.
One of the best examples I can think of is the 2012 election. Romney and Obama both had quotes that were less than artfully said. Obama had the "You didn't build that" quote and Romney had the whole thing about not representing people who don't pay taxes. Both quotes had context issues but that didn't stop the media from seizing on them. If you looked at CNN's website, there were almost no stories on Obama's quote and none made the headlines. Go to FoxNews' website and they ran stories about it 24/7 for a month.
The reverse was true with the Romney quote. FoxNews barely mentioned it but CNN ran it as a top story for a month.
Each individual article written on that story could have been done so with the utmost professionalism. That doesn't matter when the stories that are deemed fit to cover all slant one direction.
You can adhere to all of those values of journalism reflected in the article and still be a partisan hack.
Provide people with facts- Facts on what stories?
Give voice to the less powerful- Which less powerful groups deserve a voice?
Monitor the powerful- Which powerful people deserve the most monitoring?
Put information out in the open- What information is important enough to dig up?
Spotlight what's not right- Who defines what is right or wrong?
Two journalists of differing political views would reach entirely different conclusions while still upholding these values in their mind.