NationStates Jolt Archive

Journalists, Anchors, Editors, .. and the people running the media.. (in your Country and in the US media)

Are they Patriotic enough?
Should they try to be more Patriotic?

Why should patriotism be a requirement for the job at all?

Journalism performs an important function in any democratic society, but patriotism need not be a part of it. Their job is to present the news to the public, and to offer editorial viewpoints for the public to disseminate. If they want to be patriotic, fine. If they wish to present a highly critical point of view, that's good too.

What matters is that they are heard, and that we get a variety of opinions to hear.

There job is to report the facts, as they are, with no spin. Period.

If it's Iran-style patriotism, no thanks :p

Are they Patriotic enough?
Should they try to be more Patriotic?

What kind of "patriotic"?

Flag-waving or flag-burning?

Yes. They are patriotic enough.

A patriot is "one who loves his or her country and supports its authority and interests."

So I would say any journalist, editor or anchor person can be a patriot... if they love their country and support its authority and interests.

Next!

There job is to report the facts, as they are, with no spin. Period.

See, I don't think it's possible to print a zero-spin article. Which facts are used, the specific words you use, are all part of the reporting process, and sometimes one can indavertantly add their own bias to a news story.

Even if you take away the 'value-neutral' news reporting, taking away editorial comment and opinion pieces guts probably the most important part of the journalistic process. Freedom of speech and all that.

Journalists, Anchors, Editors, .. and the people running the media.. (in your Country and in the US media)

Are they Patriotic enough?
Should they try to be more Patriotic?

Oh my God! Save me, I'm drowning in the pretentiousness and innuendo! :eek:

yes they are patriotic enough

there isnt much patriotism needed for the job.

See, I don't think it's possible to print a zero-spin article. Which facts are used, the specific words you use, are all part of the reporting process, and sometimes one can indavertantly add their own bias to a news story.Impossible, yes. A goal worth striving for? Definatly.

Even if you take away the 'value-neutral' news reporting, taking away editorial comment and opinion pieces guts probably the most important part of the journalistic process. Freedom of speech and all that.

op/ed isn't news, it's discourse. In the course of publishing, editing, and reporting the news, they should be as unbiased as humanly possible.

Impossible, yes. A goal worth striving for? Definatly.



op/ed isn't news, it's discourse. In the course of publishing, editing, and reporting the news, they should be as unbiased as humanly possible.

That's fair. Although it'll never happen. Better to train ourselves to read between the lines.

patriotism makes me queasy. besides, journalists are supposed to be dedicated to the facts, not a country.

There job is to report the facts, as they are, with no spin. Period.

Like the US Media. They never report about all the 'good' things happening in Iraq. You know, like puppies and flowers all around?

They only report about all the bad things in Iraq. Like how the US has been using puppies as cover and flowers as a way to spread contagious infections in the terrorist population.

The GOP could be behind it too, you know. Snow covering the tulips in front of the White House? In April? Thousands of pets dying due to poisoned pet food?

Coincidence? I think not...

patriotism makes me queasy. besides, journalists are supposed to be dedicated to the facts, not a country.
I've always considered journalists responsible to their employers, but that's just me.

Do you think the British and the Iranian Journalists/editors/anchors are supporting the interest of their "nation"?

Sure. Why wouldn't they be?

A patriot is "one who loves his or her country and supports its authority and interests."

So I would say any journalist, editor or anchor person can be a patriot... if they love their country and support its authority and interests.

Next!Interesting..
Would you say: The British -and the Iranian- Journalists/editors/anchors.. are currently "supporting" the interests of their "nation"?

Broadcasters present starkly opposing views of the crisis over the capture and release of 15 sailors and marines.
April 8, 2007

CAIRO — Worlds apart, but a few clicks away on the remote control, Western and Middle Eastern media presented starkly opposing views of the standoff over Iran's capture and release of 15 British sailors and marines.

According to CNN, the 14 men and one woman had been subjected to "mind games, isolation, aggressive interrogations" at the hands of the Revolutionary Guard after their capture while on patrol last month in the Persian Gulf.

But on Al Arabiya, a pan-Arab news TV station, the Britons' revelations after their release "showed contradictions" and appeared staged. And Iran fired off its own allegations of abuse Saturday, charging that U.S. officials and the CIA took part in the kidnapping and torture of an Iranian diplomat in Iraq.

From beginning to end, the strange standoff between Britain and Iran over the detention of the sailors was shaped more by underlying geopolitical tensions and mistrust than the maps and satellite coordinates trumpeted by both sides.

The propaganda war began from the moment the Iranian gunboats surrounded the British sailors...

http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/fairenough/latimes933.html

I've always considered journalists responsible to their employers, but that's just me.the employers/owners are sometimes the Nationalists/Patriots.. pushing the envelope.

that is why I included "people running the media" in the equation.

the employers/owners are sometimes the Nationalists/Patriots.. pushing the envelope.

that is why I included "people running the media" in the equation.
True. My point was that I don't like to treat news as some sort of higher calling. It's a job like any other, and I feel that holding it to any higher standard than that is going to lead people becoming disappointed and disillusioned.

Sure. Why wouldn't they be?there is several points to consider..

some for and some against..

that is why I created this debate.

I think 'patriotism' is an oft-abused term.

I love my country. That's why it bothers me to see it get so fucked in the ass by Harper and Co. That's why it pisses me off when we sully ourselves in conflicts begun by the US. Why it angers me to see our government fail to meet its commitments to First Nations people. If I didn't care, I'd be quiet. I want to tear this government down, smash the state, and start over. How can speaking out about these sorts of things POSSIBLY be anything BUT patriotism?

True. My point was that I don't like to treat news as some sort of higher calling. It's a job like any other, and I feel that holding it to any higher standard than that is going to lead people becoming disappointed and disillusioned.

They should be held to a higher standard, same as all other professionals (doctors, lawyers, teachers, engineers...they are all held to standards above their employers)

Journalists should be more dedicated to the truth than a boss. The boss should also be more dedicated to the truth than their company. The company, above all else, should be dedicated to good journalistic practices.

I've always considered journalists responsible to their employers, but that's just me.

must be. in the same way that doctors are responsible for their patients, mechanics are responsible for fixing their customers cars, lawyers are responsible to their clients, so journalists are responsible to present news coverage to their viewers/readers/listeners that is as balanced and accurate as possible. when your responsibility is only to those holding authority you are no better than a bridled work horse.

Journalists are not patriots but shouldn't have to be.

must be. in the same way that doctors are responsible for their patients, mechanics are responsible for fixing their customers cars, lawyers are responsible to their clients, so journalists are responsible to present news coverage to their viewers/readers/listeners that is as balanced and accurate as possible. when your responsibility is only to those holding authority you are no better than a bridled work horse.
In every one of these cases, the individual is responsible because he or she has a direct contract with the other person, not because of some greater calling.

Sure. Why wouldn't they be?

Oh but it can be so tricky...supporting the authority and interests of the nation...

Who is the authority? What are the interests?

One could argue that in a representative democracy, the authority is vested in the people, and manifested in the representatives, and the interests of the nation are given form in their actions.

But one could also argue that the authority is vested in the people, full stop. That the form of government itself can not possibly give a comprehensive voice to that authority, or the intersts of the nation, the people. Are we talking about the authority or interests of the majority? The political elite? Or EVERYONE, mixed, crazed, contradictory as that is?

In every one of these cases, the individual is responsible because he or she has a direct contract with the other person, not because of some greater calling.

Doctors are responsible not only to patients, but the AMA and hipo laws. Lawyers are responsible to the bar and courts.

In a society with a mercantilist economy and no publicly owned media, the problem is there's no legitimate way to maintain objective, factual and critical journalism in mainstream media.

The economic and political interests, especially in a corporate hegemony like the US, have a vested interest in undermining the purpose of the 4th estate, and in the circumstances there's no way to prevent it from happening.

MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NY Times etc, etc, are perfectly good examples of it.

If patriotism isn't to support and promote public interest, but to promote the interest of the powers that be, the private and politically run public media on this planet today, probably couldn't be anymore patriotic than it already is. Because if it could, it would be.
Unfortunately public interest and the interests of the ruling economic and political minorities, very rarely - possibly never - coincide. So you get situations like the media hyping elections and military campaigns that benefit nobody but the ~1% of the peoples who make up the ruling class, instead of media trying to present critical analysis of what the consequences of those elections and military campaigns are for the ~99% of the people who aren't part of the ruling class.

In the end, the OPs question comes across as one of "We're feeding ourselves an artificial worldview. Should we try to make it artificial?" - And that, of course, makes no sense at all.

Good morning, by the way.

Doctors are responsible not only to patients, but the AMA and hipo laws. Lawyers are responsible to the bar and courts.

And (UK) journalists are responsible to the PCC:
http://www.pcc.org.uk/index2.html
In many ways, the prospect of a complaint to the PCC is scarier than getting sued. Plus many editors have a clause in their contract to say they will follow the PCC code of practice. Failing to do so could be a sacking offence.

Journalists, Anchors, Editors, .. and the people running the media.. (in your Country and in the US media)

Are they Patriotic enough?
Should they try to be more Patriotic?

Your question itself makes me shudder and laugh at the same time.

Patriotism has ZERO relevance to journalism. The journalists themselves can be patriotic or anarchists, but this should not influence their writing; a journalist shouldn't write an article to be patriotic or to bash a government. Stories are written according to their newsworthiness, not patriotism.

I think being a journalist, at least in the United States is patriotic. There is nothing that embodies freedom so much as finding out what is wrong in your country, and bringing it to the public eye.

They may not be nationalist, but they are patriotic.

If they aren't actively committing treason* or conspiring to do so then they're patriotic enough. That goes for pretty much everyone.

*Real trason like revealing national secrets or something like that, not retarded treason like breaking the flag code

Ideally, in a democratic society, the press should be neutral.

You want a patriotic press that went REALLY bad? Try "Der Stürmer".

I don't believe that a reporter/newsgroup should be "Patriotic" in the sense of altering their findings to fit governmental or national bias. They probably do have a duty to not leak military intelligence in time of war, or obviously important national secrets - though they should weigh carefully that duty with the right to know of the public.

I have a problem with the fact that a lot of our media seem to have decided that the war in Iraq is going to be lost, no matter what. The news reports I've seen (US, British and Australian) don't seem to tally at all with what I'm hearing from people who've actually been there. I was talking to a marine just before Easter who'd spent a tour there in January, and according to him, all the trouble is happening around Baghdad and the capital province. The rest of the country is more or less functional and stable. This is something our news groups apparently don't want us to know. It would conflict with the "unwinnable war" scenario they've decided is the only way to report on the region.

I think being impartial is more important, depending on the news station that is.