Replies

CBoldt, being that Ciaphus Cain was describing his personal approach to the rigors of being a good journalist, I must respectfully disagree.

I’ll use my own job as the example: I am an engineer. I work in software, in the aerospace industry. In order to “do the job right”, I have to apply a significant mix of technical and sociological disciplines. Being able to write code with good syntax is a minor part of the job, although it is the only part that everyone sees and can understand.

You and he both seem to understand that presenting information to help others form opinions is a dangerously powerful role. From his side (presenting the information), he sees that it is required of him to be very careful to be as unbiased as possible. From your side, you see that assuming no bias on part of the journalist is reckless.

Remember Reagan’s “Trust, but verify” quip? Most media wants that to be only “trust”. We conservatives understand that verification is an essential element of that trust.

And good journalists understand that trust is earned through a rigorous process of verification.

Judging just from a few words on this website (an incomplete picture, to be sure), Ciaphus Cain appears to have been a good journalist, who expects to have his info verified in order to establish and maintain the requisite trust.

My point is that the profession of journalism uses the myth of its own objectivity as a tool to mislead its audience. That sort of deliberate mythology does not exist in engineering (me too, FWIW) and other professions. Physics has a role in engineering, no similar "hard wall" exists in reporting. Untruths can become believed truths, but structures will always collapse when sufficiently overloaded.

-- From your side, you see that assuming no bias on part of the journalist is reckless. --

Reckless is an okay word there, but I view it as gullible, with the gullibility being dispelled by "trust me, I'm a professional journalist, sacred trust, etc."

The first goal of journalism is to manipulate the audience. Sometimes that corresponds with accurately reporting, sometimes not.

I don't doubt that some people who are journalists are pretty darn close to objective and honest. They are the exception.

My hang up is the way the public is conditioned to view journalism. In days gone by, journalism was openly advocacy, and the people were left to sort through competing narratives. This is better, IMO, because it results in more people engaged in independent thinking. I think the myth of "sacred trust" being a journalist's guidepost is harmful to society at large.