The first thing I want to say here is that I do not consider John Stewart, Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter, Michael Moore or any others of their ilk journalists. Their value is in their opinions and in their slant, not in their ability to present facts.
Right, on with the question.
Do journalists have the duty or the right to question authority?
Is the journalist's job to present the facts, whatever that means, and just the facts, and to remain as non partisan as possible or is their job to provoke and question what they see and present the idea as fully as they can?
My issue with "non partisan" news, history, or facts is that I do not believe they exist. I do not believe that any one fact can exist without being colored by perception. Maybe elemetry maths is exepmpt from this statement, but even then, the possibility of other conceptions of math, non binary math, for instance preclude its absolute truth. What do you think? Not about math, but about Journalism.
2006-10-28 16:16:24 · 7 answers · asked by gheefreak 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Perhaps the major issue here is defining public interest and the form that the presentation thereof takes. People's opinions on what defines relevant news varies, and objective presentation, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Hyperbole is maligned by some, praised by others. It's less a matter of what is objective than it is of who can determine what is objective.
Journalists have the duty to seek and present the truth, so inherently they must question authority, but their questioning must be based on contrary information, or to inquiry about verification. Challenging authority should never be about egos. Illegitimate questions come at the expense of integrity.
2006-10-28 16:26:17 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 28⤊ 14⤋
A true journalist will not slant the facts in a report. The problem is all the media is biased toward one party or the other and those working for them need to follow the dictates of the management. Instead of the ability to have instant exchange of information providing better knowledge it has been morphed into a monster that causes more confusion than giving clear reports. Any political views should be expressed as such and not passed through the media as factual reports.
2006-10-28 23:51:31 · answer #2 · answered by old codger 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Journalism was always critical and suspicious of authoritarians wanting to pursue some group's agenda. Don't you remember the days when NO politician was worth trusting?
I don't get what's so cool about being through obedience training these days, sounds like communism creeping into the Fatherland!
2006-10-29 00:10:10 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 5⤊ 1⤋
NY Times stories can be examples of keeping gov powers in check. Those leaked info on wiretap, surveilance programs...etc. Imagine gov having full control so no one can know how exactly our own gov is performing. That's problem but NY Times is so controversial because some consider their stories treason. But no one was ever charged with that. In China, kind of stories NY Times published will certaintly mean jail time or death.
Whole media bias thing may be bit overblown by bloggers and outspoken columnists and analysts (type of people you mention there). You have to remember lot of human factors are involved in any business too. People have opinions and one way or other their opinions are manifested in form of arts or journalism as well.
Jounalists in free country do have some responsibility to ask hard questions since they don't work for government, but should really be serving public. Many will argue its not only their right, but its their responsibility.
2006-10-29 02:20:57 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 4⤋
They go hand in hand and usually one don't know what the other is doing.
2006-10-28 23:34:43 · answer #5 · answered by Chris Dean 3 · 5⤊ 4⤋
yes
2006-10-28 23:23:44 · answer #6 · answered by jen4802051709 3 · 5⤊ 6⤋
need each other
2006-10-29 00:19:57 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋