It's certainly a mistake to think that news outlets, newspapers and journalism in general have only recently become extremely politically biased and propaganda machines, and that previously journalism had much more integrity and abode much more strictly to journalistic ethics and principles. Heavily politically biased journalism has always existed, even in free countries (where the government isn't controlling them).
However, I think it's safe to say that in the past journalism tended to have more integrity than it does today. In other words, there were many more newspapers and news outlets that had much stricter standards of good journalism in the past than there is today, and egregiously politically biased journalism (by news outlets not being pressured by a totalitarian government) that bypassed journalistic principles for the sake of political propaganda was significantly rarer.
In the past news organizations and journalists prided themselves for doing hard investigative well-researched fact-checked journalism, with no bias, no agenda, just exposing and telling the truth. "The public has the right to know" was a kind of unofficial motto. Whatever the facts and the truth are, the public should be informed of it.
Doing research and fact-checking was one of the most important parts of good journalism, which distinguished good newspapers from gossip tabloids. When something newsworthy happened, the journalists would go and do research and investigation on it. They would interview people, they would interview officials, they would check sources, they would check the validity and credibility of sources, they would try to find out what exactly happened, and report it as accurately as possible.
In general this was possible because the journalists were not in a crazy rush to have something published as fast as possible. Even in the most pressing matters they had at the very least time to hit the next morning issue of the newspaper (meaning at least several hours of phone calls or going to interview people). In many cases they could spend several days to investigate what happened. The most involved stories could take weeks or even months to research thoroughly.
The internet has changed this quite radically.
With the popularization of the internet, news travels to the entirety of the world in a matter of seconds. When something newsworthy happens, people on the other side of the planet may become aware of it in mere minutes of it happening.
Most news outlets always want to be on the forefront of reporting. They want to be among the first ones to report on the event to their readers. It would be unthinkable to wait to the next days, or even a few hours, to report on it for the first time. Nowadays that's an eternity. You could just as well wait for a year to report on it.
This means that journalists simply have no time to do any research or fact-checking. None at all. Often they need to write an article on an event within mere minutes of them becoming aware of it, if they want to be on the forefront of reporting. Even if they take their time to write a thorough article, and take like an hour or two to do so, there will be not much actual investigation and fact-checking. There will be no phone calls, there will be no interviews, there will certainly not be any actual traveling to the place where it happened in order to interview people and officials, to find out what happened.
The fact is, modern online journalism consists primarily of journalists copying each other, with zero fact checking. They will read each other's tweets, they might watch some YouTube videos (if they exist for that particular event), and that's about it. Most journalists rely solely on what they read on Twitter and Facebook, written by other journalists or random people. They will do no fact-checking, to make sure that what's being said is actually accurate.
In much of modern journalism the journalistic culture has changed. They don't even bother do any fact checking. They just want to push an agenda, and write sensationalistic articles and hit pieces, and they simply don't care if it's accurate or not. Even if some article is blatantly wrong, it will be quickly forgotten by the public anyway.
In the modern day of the internet, journalistic integrity is mostly dead.
However, I think it's safe to say that in the past journalism tended to have more integrity than it does today. In other words, there were many more newspapers and news outlets that had much stricter standards of good journalism in the past than there is today, and egregiously politically biased journalism (by news outlets not being pressured by a totalitarian government) that bypassed journalistic principles for the sake of political propaganda was significantly rarer.
In the past news organizations and journalists prided themselves for doing hard investigative well-researched fact-checked journalism, with no bias, no agenda, just exposing and telling the truth. "The public has the right to know" was a kind of unofficial motto. Whatever the facts and the truth are, the public should be informed of it.
Doing research and fact-checking was one of the most important parts of good journalism, which distinguished good newspapers from gossip tabloids. When something newsworthy happened, the journalists would go and do research and investigation on it. They would interview people, they would interview officials, they would check sources, they would check the validity and credibility of sources, they would try to find out what exactly happened, and report it as accurately as possible.
In general this was possible because the journalists were not in a crazy rush to have something published as fast as possible. Even in the most pressing matters they had at the very least time to hit the next morning issue of the newspaper (meaning at least several hours of phone calls or going to interview people). In many cases they could spend several days to investigate what happened. The most involved stories could take weeks or even months to research thoroughly.
The internet has changed this quite radically.
With the popularization of the internet, news travels to the entirety of the world in a matter of seconds. When something newsworthy happens, people on the other side of the planet may become aware of it in mere minutes of it happening.
Most news outlets always want to be on the forefront of reporting. They want to be among the first ones to report on the event to their readers. It would be unthinkable to wait to the next days, or even a few hours, to report on it for the first time. Nowadays that's an eternity. You could just as well wait for a year to report on it.
This means that journalists simply have no time to do any research or fact-checking. None at all. Often they need to write an article on an event within mere minutes of them becoming aware of it, if they want to be on the forefront of reporting. Even if they take their time to write a thorough article, and take like an hour or two to do so, there will be not much actual investigation and fact-checking. There will be no phone calls, there will be no interviews, there will certainly not be any actual traveling to the place where it happened in order to interview people and officials, to find out what happened.
The fact is, modern online journalism consists primarily of journalists copying each other, with zero fact checking. They will read each other's tweets, they might watch some YouTube videos (if they exist for that particular event), and that's about it. Most journalists rely solely on what they read on Twitter and Facebook, written by other journalists or random people. They will do no fact-checking, to make sure that what's being said is actually accurate.
In much of modern journalism the journalistic culture has changed. They don't even bother do any fact checking. They just want to push an agenda, and write sensationalistic articles and hit pieces, and they simply don't care if it's accurate or not. Even if some article is blatantly wrong, it will be quickly forgotten by the public anyway.
In the modern day of the internet, journalistic integrity is mostly dead.
Comments
Post a Comment