Which is theoretically correct and everything, but if your company is based on te belief that it’s raining outside but another company is based on the belief that it’s not, you have to pander towards the want of your corporation in order to entice your reader demographic to actually buy and read your article. So your job, if you actually want to survive and make money as a journalist, is to write content that is in line with the beliefs of the media corporation that you write for.
That's partially true, but there is a reason why people at real news stations get fired if they get their details wrong... and then at this other station, which will not be named, they don't get fired when they spout lie after lie, flip flop and just say outrageous crap.
Your job is to see what the experts say, all of the experts not just one in ten thousand, and gather a consensus to put forward with notes at the end to make it clear where all of your information came with.
You ask if they lied, from their perspective they did not. But from your perspective, is what they said true? So they did not lie, and it is not true. Perhaps that’s fine for you or I casually speaking. But when one takes the mantle of a professional in the media, or takes a position where their word becomes a platform, they have a higher standard, a higher responsibility. Things like details such as “it’s raining on the east side,” to at the very least fulfill the gradeschool structures of who, what, when, when, how, and why? To perhaps give some context. To hopefully do it all with objectivity, or make it clear if it is an editorial, and to balance the perspective of such content. Fact, truth, all humans are limited by our perspective of events, but true journalism is about trying to construct the most complete picture of an event and collect the information, then arrange it so that it can be digested by an average person.
Comments