I have always tried to find alternative sources of information to get to the “real news”, the “real information”. The start for my behaviour was somewhere so far that I can’t remember, but it has lead me to a state where I see people reading CNN, YLE (Finland) and the likes to be a bit of sheep. And obviously, this isn’t good nor is it true, as there are reasons why reliable and meritable news have risen to the status they now hold: organizations that will be referenced by other sources and can be considered as the “truth”.
With journalists and news organizations getting a lot of blame these days, it is very strange that people who criticized them as being biased cannot mention where they get their news from. I ask them: could it be that you don’t have any reliable news organizations nor other sources, but rather claiming to know the truth by feelings and a group hypnosis from your peers? And further: why is it that when the news criticises your position or the “real news”, you say that the news is biased and controlled by the wealthy elite? But when the news is on your side, you have no issues in citing the publication source?
The reason why journalistic ethics are important is because, like in science, there is only the actual truth and not some sort of truths. For example, if there is a protest and someone is shot, there is no “well, he wasn’t really shot, because it was a hoax made by the Illuminati and the Freemasons, you weren’t there”. Sure, I wasn’t there, but neither were most of the people in this planet – thus, we have to rely on the sources that say what happened and the eyewitnesses testimonies. And not get the “truth” from someone writing a blog somewhere in the internet without any actual evidence to back their story – the facts are the facts, not speculation.
With scientific method, the frauds and the scams are separated from the reality. The same goes for the news, as you can speculate and/or have gut feelings on the issue, but if studies (multiple articles) show that the Earth is warming up in an alarming rate (for example), it is not a hoax nor a difference in opinion: is it the truth as we know it.
Sure, time can, and it has, shown that the results may be wrong or that there have been faults in the scientific method and so on, BUT the feature of science and research is the key that makes it so flexible: when more information comes forth, so does the result, but for now this is what we know. I see many people in the internet, news and in real life saying stupid things, like “How can you read that magazine, is so leftist?” Well, it just happens to have history of actual reporting and groundbreaking journalism, what else can I read? Instead, I should trust more on your blogger who knows the “real truth behind the JFK shooting.” – give me a break!
Leave a Reply