What do you reckon about 'good' and 'bad' journalism?

1. 62

   Lanzskieposted 12 years ago

   What do you reckon about 'good' and 'bad' journalism?
   
   In general, do you believe journalists? Why and why not?

   replyreport
2. 82

   Electro-Denizenposted 12 years ago

   Journalism that brings to the world's attention injustices in the world is a good thing. Journalism that chases after stars and pries into people's private lives is rubbish and pathetic.
   
   On the whole I don't really believe the news or journalism. It's amazing how many things are exaggerated or simply invented to make a story. It's actually very difficult to get to the truth of things, and generally one needs personal contact with someone who was actually there.
   
   It's insane how many people actually believe the news.

   replyreport
   1. 62

      Lanzskieposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      This is great! Many thanks I too agree pretty much everything

      replyreport
   2. 0

      Larry Wallposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      People have to learn to filter what they hear just like they filter the stories their children tell and the office gossip. There is usually an element of truth--it is up to the reader or viewer to follow the natural and logical course.

      replyreport
3. 82

   John Sarkisposted 12 years ago

   Difficult to answer question.  Freud wrote a great deal on this topic.  People are biased and sometimes it shows in their literary works.  e.g., a Palestinian might report an even differently than an Israeli would based on personal opinions on the matter and vice versa...  I think the famous old saying states it best "you need to take things with a grain of salt."

   replyreport
   1. 62

      Lanzskieposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Define 'good' and 'bad' Journalism to start with.

      replyreport
4. 81

   MattyJ9999posted 12 years ago

   I think you have to consider the source and be weary of all information you come across.  It's important to check facts that you think may not be accurate.
   
   Different media organizations often have agendas and slant a certain point of view that they deem is "correct."  Many writers often do the same thing due to their own bias opinions.
   
   I think the best course of action is to read from as many sources as possible, check facts, and formulate your own opinions.

   replyreport
   1. 62

      Lanzskieposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Do you really think that is possible? Another thing, '...check facts and formulate  your own opinions' does that also indicates bias? hmm..

      replyreport
   2. 81

      MattyJ9999posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Of course I think it's possible.  It's also simple.
      Use Google
      There may be a million wrong sources and only one right one, but if you dig deep enough you'll find the right one.  There is bias everywhere, don't allow your own bias to effect research.

      replyreport
   3. 0

      Larry Wallposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Checking facts and keeping them separate from opinions is important. Sometimes presenting the facts will be viewed as an opinion depending on the source. Often that indicates a bias of the reader and not the journalist..

      replyreport
5. 93

   MarleneBposted 12 years ago

   It is difficult for me to trust journalists. I can't always be sure they are reporting the truth or making stuff up to sell a story. It is even more difficult to verify information, especially on the internet, because many resources are "open" sources and can be written by anyone (i.e. Wikipedia).

   replyreport
6. 0

   Larry Wallposted 12 years ago

   As a former journalist, I want to make two points.
   First, there is a large group of journalists you never see or hear because they work in small markets. Small towns do not mean small news. I worked 13 years in an area of about 20,000 people--I covered a serial killer, fires, bank robberies, help put a crooked police chief in jail and kept a branch library in a minority community from being closed.
   The other groups are those you see and hear on radio and television every day. I am as disappointed in them as are most of you. The problem is that we have news 24 hours a day from multiple sources, so finding something "original" to fill that time becomes more difficult. Also, stories that were once only of local concern, become major events that get hours of coverage.
   If people stopped watching the constant barrage of poorly prepared news stories, a repair process might begin, where real journalism would return and the "we must top the ratings" mentality may disappear.
   
   Finally, I am very proud of working for that small paper for 13 years. I learned a tremendous number of things that I would have missed in other jobs. There are good journalists, they are just not on television or radio--with a few exceptions.

   replyreport
   1. 93

      MarleneBposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      You make a good point, Larry. I guess I shouldn't put all journalists in the same bag. I have a close relative who was a journalist with a nice following. There are some, like my relative and people like you, who I would trust what they report.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      Larry Wallposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you. A good journalist values his reputation more than he does his byline. Reporting the news fairly and accurately gives you a fantastic feeling of accomplishment.

      replyreport
   3. 82

      Electro-Denizenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I guess your journalism was of the variety that helped rather than hindered. The other issue are editors and what they find palatable. Also, what kind of journalism - science journalists are generally known to not really understand the hard science.

      replyreport
   4. 62

      Lanzskieposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      This is indeed a very interesting point Mr Wall. Thank you for this!

      replyreport
   5. 0

      Larry Wallposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Electro-Denizen--some journalists have background in various sciences. I did not. Thus my job was to have the source explain and explain again what he was saying until I could get him to put his comments in words that everyone could understand.

      replyreport