NationStates Jolt Archive

Personally I think this would be a good idea. I'd be more for it if it were voluntary and if it were easy to find which reporters took the oath. People are yelling at me to get off the computer so I can't really go into too much more detail in my point of view than that.

http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=31&aid=135608

See Hippocratic Oath (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_oath)

I certainly support it.

It's a bad idea, you don't make any money with a fair and balanced coverage of an issue.

It's a good idea, but it won't work.

I don't know about "presenting all sides of an issue" as the article suggested. While always a good idea when considering one's stance on an issue, there are editorial pieces and human interest pieces and stories about people's lives where a certain view may be represented, and I don't think it's always up to the journalist to present every possible objection. If someone else wants to write an article taking a counter position, that's fine. I think however that in a story, whatever side is represented, the journalist does have an obligation to tell the truth and nothing but the truth.

Protecting sources is also a very important part of journalism. I spent two years at a newspaper and I can say with assurance that no one I worked with would ever give up a source--this is so vital to journalism that no one needs to swear an oath, it is implicit in the job. However, it might be nice to convey that idea to the government when they start jailing journalists.

SPJ Code of Ethics (http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp).

It's a good idea, but it won't work.

I don't think it would work in all cases. Who would believe Bill O'Reilly if he took that oath? But I think for the journalists that do take it, it would just be another clue to follow as to the state of their integrity. And the fall they would take for violating a code they willingly chose to follow would make a much louder slapping noise.

Bad idea, because "fair and balanced" is never as black and white as the people who complain will insist.

Good idea though lots of publications have Codes of Conduct as well as the NUJ (National Union of Journalists)

However in some cases journalists are forced to write stories to get a shock value even if they disagree with what they are writing.

Example:

Daily Express Journalists complain (http://www.irr.org.uk/2004/february/ak000006.html)



Journalists at the Daily Express say that editors are pressurising them 'to write anti-Gypsy' articles. Last week, the newspaper ran a campaign to prevent Roma (Gypsies) from new EU countries coming to Britain - which led to the government announcing new restrictions.

Good idea though lots of publications have Codes of Conduct as well as the NUJ (National Union of Journalists)

Never mind that - the Press Complaints Commission Code of Practice has it pretty well covered, and breaching that is a sackable offence at any newspaper worthy of the name.

That said, I'm all in favour of anything that helps the pubic to distinguish between good and bad journalists. At the moment, the incompetent muppets out there (and there are a fair few) drag the whole profession down.

See Hippocratic Oath (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_oath)

I certainly support it.

Yes, but the Hippocratic Oath is voluntary, and I've heard some good reasons not to take it.

If this was also voluntary, I'd support it.

An oath? I don't know. It could possibly limit my free speech rights/interfere with my job

If we look at the original Hippocratic Oath, it's apparent that a wide variety of doctors who might have sworn to it don't follow it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath#The_classical_oath

Especially the part about abortion. Mind you, I'm all for abortion at the request of the woman, but the oath is specifically anti-abortion.

Modern versions probably have dropped this, but there are still other parts that apparently get violated, according to the Wikipedia article.

I've seen a lot of bad journalism, so yeah, I would support a voluntary oath. Maybe it would remind the journalists why they're doing what they're doing.

I've seen a lot of bad journalism, so yeah, I would support a voluntary oath. Maybe it would remind the journalists why they're doing what they're doing.

So, why are they constantly covering what happens to Britney Spears?

I support the idea if it encourages honest, integral reporting, where all the points presented are valid and aren't skewed to represent a certain point of view, unless a person is being quoted. Back to just the facts.

The absolute last thing American media needs is more "Fair and Balanced" media coverage. That's how we end up with bullshit "debates" like Creationism vs. Evolutionary Biology.

Sorry, but there are not two equal sides to every issue. In many cases, there's one side that has reasoning, evidence, logic, and reality on their side, and then there's a group of nitwits throwing a tantrum. I'm very tired of our media falsely portraying all issues as having two equally valid opposing sides.

So, why are they constantly covering what happens to Britney Spears?

Exactly!

...and you could add furiously / rabidly to that sentence.

The absolute last thing American media needs is more "Fair and Balanced" media coverage. That's how we end up with bullshit "debates" like Creationism vs. Evolutionary Biology.

Sorry, but there are not two equal sides to every issue. In many cases, there's one side that has reasoning, evidence, logic, and reality on their side, and then there's a group of nitwits throwing a tantrum. I'm very tired of our media falsely portraying all issues as having two equally valid opposing sides.

That may be why the suggested oath says:

1. Truth, fairness and presenting readers with all relevant sides of a story.

There are always two sides, but the validity and relevance will differ.

The absolute last thing American media needs is more "Fair and Balanced" media coverage. That's how we end up with bullshit "debates" like Creationism vs. Evolutionary Biology.

Sorry, but there are not two equal sides to every issue. In many cases, there's one side that has reasoning, evidence, logic, and reality on their side, and then there's a group of nitwits throwing a tantrum. I'm very tired of our media falsely portraying all issues as having two equally valid opposing sides.

Whats wrong with having those debates? It only makes the creationists whine about persecution if we don't let them have a say on top of a whole lot of other things, and it also allows people to clearly see how nonsensical creationism is when it is put to the test.

Not only this, but unless the issue is purely scientific, there is very rarely a clear cut objectively true opinion to be found on an issue, it's stupid to have a media source stubbornly report biased one sided views on every issue. Ultimately however the media should present the facts and let the reader form an opinion.