Ethical journalism should be accurate and fair. Journalists should be honest and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.
Journalists should:
– Take responsibility for the accuracy of their work. Verify information before releasing it. Use original sources whenever possible.
– Remember that neither speed nor format excuses inaccuracy.
– Provide context. Take special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify in promoting, previewing or summarizing a story.
– Gather, update and correct information throughout the life of a news story.
– Be cautious when making promises, but keep the promises they make.
– Identify sources clearly. The public is entitled to as much information as possible to judge the reliability and motivations of sources.
– Consider sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Reserve anonymity for sources who may face danger, retribution or other harm, and have information that cannot be obtained elsewhere. Explain why anonymity was granted.
– Diligently seek subjects of news coverage to allow them to respond to criticism or allegations of wrongdoing.
– Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information unless traditional, open methods will not yield information vital to the public.
– Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable. Give voice to the voiceless.
– Support the open and civil exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.
– Recognize a special obligation to serve as watchdogs over public affairs and government. Seek to ensure that the public’s business is conducted in the open, and that public records are open to all.
– Provide access to source material when it is relevant and appropriate.
– Boldly tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience. Seek sources whose voices we seldom hear.
– Avoid stereotyping. Journalists should examine the ways their values and experiences may shape their reporting.
– Label advocacy and commentary.
– Never deliberately distort facts or context, including visual information. Clearly label illustrations and re-enactments.
The thing is that many people here likely think that nobody has journalistic standards. (And it's basically AN OBJECTIVE for an disinformation campaign, btw.)
What people seem not to understand that in nowhere above is it stated that the journalist shouldn't have opinions himself. The journalist CAN say that something is wrong or right, something is moral or immoral, ethical or unethical and have their own viewpoint and opinion. And from that comes usually what I call the "bias". You can follow everything above and make either an left-wing or right-wing biased story. And that bias simply comes from what event or thing the journalist covers. Yet it's easy to see that bias.
Well, everyone has an opinion and can express it, especially in places where there is a protection to have unfavorable opinions and/or contrary to the ones holding the power. But it's when those opinions start to shape a narrative that isn't supportive of any facts. Like the opinion that Obama wasn't born in the US or that the Russian investigation is some kind of "deep state" conspiracy to remove Trump, etc...
But some would also like to believe that WaPo is out to wrongly smear Moore- that they claim spent time fact-checking the story that they published about him dating teenagers. Especially the story about him dating a 14-year-old and also him going to malls and local games looking to hook up with teenage girls.
Last edited by Penner on Wed Nov 29, 2017 7:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Well, everyone has an opinion and can express it, especially in places where there is a protection to have unfavorable opinions and/or contrary to the ones holding the power. But it's when those opinions start to shape a narrative that isn't supportive of any facts. Like the opinion that started with the Hillary campaign that, Obama wasn't born in the US, or the Russian investigation.
FIFY
The Russian thing is a narrative in of itself, there is nothing there you biased bitches and you know it. You lost and you lost outright accept it or be destroyed by it.
But some would also like to believe that WaPo is out to wrongly smear Moore-
They are, those two things are not mutually exclusive. Both can be true. The smears may be true and they still are looking to smear his ass as a political hit job. He was a judge for 2 decades making national headlines, WaPo did nothing, they had a primary and a runoff WaPo did nothing, only now when a god damned democrat might benefit do they pounce. We see that and we have every single right not to trust them and be suspicious of them. The liberal media has earned every single bit of their scorn your failure to recognize that is fakenews.
Nukedog wrote:A woman approached The Post with dramatic — and false — tale about Roy Moore. She appears to be part of undercover sting operation.
A woman who falsely claimed to The Washington Post that Roy Moore, the Republican U.S. Senate candidate in Alabama, impregnated her as a teenager appears to work with an organization that uses deceptive tactics to secretly record conversations in an effort to embarrass its targets.
In a series of interviews over two weeks, the woman shared a dramatic story about an alleged sexual relationship with Moore in 1992 that led to an abortion when she was 15. During the interviews, she repeatedly pressed Post reporters to give their opinions on the effects that her claims could have on Moore’s candidacy if she went public.
The Post did not publish an article based on her unsubstantiated account. When Post reporters confronted her with inconsistencies in her story and an Internet posting that raised doubts about her motivations, she insisted that she was not working with any organization that targets journalists.
But on Monday morning, Post reporters saw her walking into the New York offices of Project Veritas, an organization that targets the mainstream news media and left-leaning groups. The organization sets up undercover “stings” that involve using false cover stories and covert video recordings meant to expose what the group says is media bias.
Nukedog wrote:A woman approached The Post with dramatic — and false — tale about Roy Moore. She appears to be part of undercover sting operation.
A woman who falsely claimed to The Washington Post that Roy Moore, the Republican U.S. Senate candidate in Alabama, impregnated her as a teenager appears to work with an organization that uses deceptive tactics to secretly record conversations in an effort to embarrass its targets.
In a series of interviews over two weeks, the woman shared a dramatic story about an alleged sexual relationship with Moore in 1992 that led to an abortion when she was 15. During the interviews, she repeatedly pressed Post reporters to give their opinions on the effects that her claims could have on Moore’s candidacy if she went public.
The Post did not publish an article based on her unsubstantiated account. When Post reporters confronted her with inconsistencies in her story and an Internet posting that raised doubts about her motivations, she insisted that she was not working with any organization that targets journalists.
But on Monday morning, Post reporters saw her walking into the New York offices of Project Veritas, an organization that targets the mainstream news media and left-leaning groups. The organization sets up undercover “stings” that involve using false cover stories and covert video recordings meant to expose what the group says is media bias.
Why are we cheering for Roy before we know if the claims are true or not?
Because I'm not doing that. I think it's funny that okeefe tried to bail Roy out. I don't want to have a conversation with anyone. Please quit tagging me thanks.
Penner wrote:
Because they first fact-checked her story and found holes in it.
Well, they are journalists. They might have a bias, but they won't take everything as some Project Veritas and the types, which is simply pushing an agenda.
That's the funny thing here, those politically motivated people who at start accuse the media being biased (which it often is) then typically start pushing the purest bullshit-propaganda themselves and use the type of tricks that Goebbels would use. And typically their audience falls for it.
The funny thing is you said they are journalists, and not simply people pushing an agenda.
For the sake of comparison, can you give some examples of a true journalist, and what defines them as such?
Hontar: We must work in the world, your eminence. The world is thus.
Altamirano: No, Señor Hontar. Thus have we made the world... thus have I made it.
