Responsible Journalism Where has it gone?

[vujsa 0]

More and more I get very irritated with news media in the United States. This is because more and more often, they are creating the news instead of simply reporting it. Wild speculation and bias opinions have lead most journalist down a dark path. You've seen it before, a journalist or his producer decides that in order to be the first to report something they should provide limited and frequently inaccurate information to the public. What they fail to understand is that when they do this, everyone is affected in some way. Let's take a statement like "One analyst suggests that gas prices my rise to $4.00 a gallon by the end of May." "One analyst"! Why wouldn't they get a majority opinion before saying something like that? The reason I ask is because the next day, the gas price goes up significantly as a result. So the media says the gas price will go up so of course, the fuel companies raise their prices. Now a shaky economy gets a little worse and everyone gets a little more nervous. To make it worse, the follow days story might have a line like "Recession likely to worsen as fuel prices increase!" Now the dollar loses more values as a result and that means more little dollars to buy a barrel of oil to make gasoline so gas prices go up again!Don't get me wrong, I live in the United States and here we have a law that protects our right to say or report anything we choose. Now for anyone that doesn't live in the U.S., you can better understand what that means. Most of the people on the planet do not share this freedom. Something like calling the leader of your country an idiot would land you in prison or worse in most of the World but here I am free to say that George Bush the President of The United States of America is an idiot! Don't worry, no government officials are going to come banging on my door and my family and I won't disappear as a result of me speaking my opinion! :(This same law allows journalist, writers, musician, film and tv makers to openly express their creativity and opinions in any media they wish as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of anyone else and does not undermine national security. So if a journalist finds out that the U.S. government is tracking a terrorist by the satellite phone he uses, they can and have but should they? The U.S. government was tracking Osama Bin Laden by his satellite phone until a news report was released that that was how we tracked him. Obviously, he stopped using the phone. And we still haven't found him!A few years ago the was a school shooting at the Columbine High School. This was really the first of its kind. Everyone was shocked so naturally, the news organizations ran the details on the television, newspapers, and magazines as long as possible. Didn't take too long for copycats to do the same thing. Kids that would have never come up with the idea on their own now had a way to get a lot of attention and exact revenge on whomever they felt had wronged them. So, if the media had responsibly reported the minimal facts in the case and didn't keep at it for such a long time, would there have been fewer copycats?Remember the first election George Bush won? The media went and did all of their speculation and started to declare winners before all of the polls had closed that day. They are no longer allowed to report the results until every state has finished voting as a result. This is mostly because they caused such a mess of things. The candidates are declaring defeat or victory then recanting and arguing the point ending in recounts and an unsettled public. Not to mention that if you live in Hawaii, why vote if they have already declared a winner? Hawaii being the Western most state finishes their voting several hours after the rest of the United States which means that in years past, a winner was "projected" before most people in Hawaii went to vote and if your guy didn't win already, why vote for him?My point is that we have a very good law that protects us from government censorship but I believe that the media should be held accountable for what they report and they should restrict themselves to only reporting news not speculating or creating news to fit their needs. Do I think that the government should monitor the media, maybe but I would prefer to have the news organizations create their own monitoring system made up of private citizens and advised by a government officials. This would allow the media the freedom to do as they pleased as long as they all agreed that it was responsible and asked for the opinion of the U.S. government to ensure that national interest were protected. As I said, get the governments opinion but that is it for the government. Give the government the opportunity to explain why it isn't a good idea to tell Osama Bin Laden how we are tracking him!This is just my opinion,vujsa

[yordan 10]

Maybe there are other reasons making the gas price raise up ? Political reasons, fear of lack, offer-demand rules ? I think gas is like other sold things, they sell it the price their clients are willing to pay for it today. When gas will start being really too expensive we will walk or ride bycicles or buy electrical cars. Yes, the sentence "the price of the gas will increase" can make people buy a newspaper. But i'm pretty convinced it cannot raise the price of the petrol barrel.

[darasen 0]

Maybe there are other reasons making the gas price raise up ? Political reasons, fear of lack, offer-demand rules ? I think gas is like other sold things, they sell it the price their clients are willing to pay for it today. When gas will start being really too expensive we will walk or ride bycicles or buy electrical cars. Yes, the sentence "the price of the gas will increase" can make people buy a newspaper. But i'm pretty convinced it cannot raise the price of the petrol barrel.

Actually there is the futures market and it most definitely influenced by public perception of price.

Vujsa, I agree with you. Interestingly you use the word recession in your post a word many media outlets have been throwing around for some time, regardless of the fact the economy has failed to shrink or recede as it were. Yet, ask many people if the U.S. is experiencing a recession and they will say yes because that is what they have been told.

Don't even get me started with idiocy of the press releasing classified information when it suits their agenda. I have said many times that if we had the press we do now in the forties we would not have won World War Two.

The irony is that many of those in the media insist that they have no agendas or push no positions they simply tell the truth straight down the middle.

[dangerdan 0]

media inducing things. peston. and freedom of press. fundamental to democracy

 

It is undeniable that the media can induce a problem simply by printing it enough. I do not think this is more true than of a recession. If people hear everyday that we are in a recession what is their natural reaction? Of course it is to spend less money, thus further inducing the problem.

 

I'll take a casing point from my own country, the UK. The BBC business editor, Robert Peston, writes a blog and in one such blog he predicted the imminent closure of one Britain's banks - Northern Rock. The following day there were hundreds of people queuing outside hundreds of metres out of branches to withdraw all their money and close there accounts. Some commentators say that Peston caused the panic and frenzy that made Northern Rocks already troubling cash flow situation even more pressing and eventually the government had to guarantee everyone's money.

 

 

On the other hand, the freedom of the press is an absolutely fundamental part of a democracy. Without freedom of press it is almost impossible for meaningful public discourse to occur and for there to be any form of recall against a government. Democracy's ability to leave the dissenting voice without having to silence the critics is one of its most appealing qualities.

[iGuest 3]

Tele media is just going on with creating hype out of nothing. They are not ready to see what burns under their own feet before giving one sided news. A new dangerous trend is being set to hold parrell judiciary by calling related persons and victimise them with presumptions that they are guilty. Especially 'Times Now' pretends to be the only who have awarded rights of  doing justice the way mentione above. Its all agonising to see them behave the way trhey do.

-reply by Avinash Joshi