Thank Goodness we have the Fair and Balanced Fox News as a counterpoint to that Evil CNN;
It’s called potential conflict of interest, you could look it up. One interest would be his family feeling towards his brother (no matter what those feelings are). The other interest would be his desire to present objective information to his viewers, as far as it is possible for anyone to do that. A responsible news person wants to preserve not only maximum objectivity, but also the appearance of objectivity. On the face of it, reporting about one’s family member in the news would not have the appearance of objectivity, no matter how much he tries to actually be objective.
The biggest issue is that with the advent of the 24/7 news cycle on TV and the internet, the need to fill the schedule and draw the most eyes, means that everything has to be some combination of lurid, prurient and/or entertaining.
Where once upon a time, an average person might sit down and read a well researched and thought out magazine article on a subject, that seems to be the province of the intellectual these days, with the average person choosing between the various internet and broadcast news sources based on what grabs their attention at the moment and/or what fits their existing thinking.
So some guy who might have been stuck reading what his local rags put out in 1932, whether or not he particularly agreed with it, now can go choose something that fits his notion of how things “should be”, or that has lots of blood/boobs or whatever if that’s the way he rolls.
Either way, it’s all self-reinforcing and basically pulls the center away from solid journalism.
Or, as the rightwing outlets have learned, MAKE PEOPLE ANGRY. Against something - does not really matter what, or even if it’s true. Anger sells.
Do you think there is any way that Journalism itself can ‘raise the bar’ by developing a Code of Ethics for Journalists, something like this:
24 hour news channels have never been real journalism. Some are worse than others.
Sure. And you just end up with what we see in Faux. A bunch of popular hosts who don’t claim the title of “Journalist”.
(ETA: Not replying to Acsenray.)
So what you’re saying is carpe emptor. In my opinion there should be qualifications journalists have to earn and maintain, e.g. ‘professional journalist’ that differentiates them from pretty faces on TV. I’m not the only one who would like to be able to trust news sources. Journalists need to step up. If government gets involved, there is no hope.
? “Seize, the buyer”? Are you perhaps thinking of caveat emptor, “let the buyer beware”?
If there really is a slogan “seize the buyer” along the lines of carpe diem “seize the day”, then the correct Latin form of it would be carpe emptorem.
I for one don’t see Faux’s bullshit difficult to see through. I guess there are lots of people who have a hard time telling how or when to trust a news source. My turn: Sad.
Yes. And I’m an idiot and I’ll own that.
I agree. Qualifications can be easily looked up, and the general population doesn’t care.
S’okay, not trying to call you an idiot for an accidental misquote, just genuinely curious whether there was indeed some kind of popular hybrid slogan combining carpe diem and caveat emptor.
I think the slogan should be:
‘Venditor habeat fiduciam’, at least not today.
On the contrary. Enlightened countries have vibrant public broadcasting organizations, free of commercial influence, or political influence. The CBC in Canada and the BBC in the UK are examples. The US is shockingly backward in its lack of support for public broadcasting, and of course Republican wingnuts want to defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting entirely, because PBS and NPR piss them off by broadcasting factual information.
Believe it or not, in a democracy there really is a way for government to provide public funding to an organization that is chartered to be at arm’s length and with a mission to provide impartial news. The absence of such a dominant impartial news organization in the US is really the root of many of its problems.
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation , or CBC , is a taxpayer-funded, government-run corporation that provides a variety of free radio and television services to Canadians across the country. No matter where you are in Canada, your TV and radio will be able to pick up a CBC broadcast
That kinda reminds me of Tass:
You’re either a fucking idiot (my choice) or pretending to be one. Apparently I’m living in Stalinist Russia. 
The role of public broadcasting in furthering public information is beyond dispute. The CBC has challenged all parties equally when circumstances require, in accordance with their code of journalistic ethics.
I don’t honestly know what you mean by that. For example, a totalitarian government requires "The role of public broadcasting in furthering public information is beyond dispute’. I know that’s not how broadcasting works in Canada, but I’m curious what you think the difference is. I mean no disrespect, and I’m willing to learn.
There is a significant difference between public funding for a news organization, and state control over a news organization.
What’s that difference?