Journalists need to be Accountable too

[StuartO]

I don't remember a time when newspapers were regarded as a source of reliable truth; it was often said when I was a child that you can never believe what you read in the newspapers. Certainly if you were an eye witness to something which you subsequently read about in the papers there would be a discrepancy of some sort, sometimes you would think you were reading about something different altogether. Journalists are merely human like the rest of us and I have little doubt that journalists have never been above padding stories out or even inventing them altogether when it was expedient to do so.

 

But there were safeguards in that journalists were supposed to be reporters of facts and of other peoples' opinions, so these were checkable when necessary and while sometimes journalists did give us their own opinions, this was only in clealry labelled editorial or comment articles. Nowadays it's much more common for journalists to be interviewing other journalists, the "political correspondents" or "health correspondents who are presented to us as people who have special inside knowledge and expertise, in whom the people they really should be interviewing, the politicians or scientists, are supposed to have confided privately. And journalists never reveal their sources so their stories can never be checked. Sometimes, as recently with a BBC Panorama programme, they interview people who are wolves in sheeps clothin, people posing as experts who are actually political activists ridng their hobby horses whom the journalist allow to pretend they are impartial witnesses.

 

There have of course been heroic stories of investigative journalism which has uncovered real public scandals, notably the Watergate episode leading to President Nixons downfall, so we do need honourable journalists, perhaps more than ever these days. But it strikes me that honourable journalists are becoming a threatened sub-species and that more and more journalists are the unscrupulous types who have an agenda of their own. We are listening to journalists expressing their own opinions and often doing so in ways which give the impression that they are doing some proper reporting. And we have spin doctors, feeding stuff to journalists to serve their cause. Journalists aren't always being conspicuously politically partisan but sometimes they clearly are being partisan and that's not just Polly Toinby in the Guardian and Tory Priests in the Telegraph. Few if any of the modern journalists seem to be above grabbing and perhaps even fabricating a sensational story. For example journalists have been accused of publishing falsehoods during the coverage of the recent Cummings coverage, even after they had been given evidence of their errors.

 

And thesedays, especially on TV, we're being given material which is merely the opnion, the uncheckable opinion, of the parliamemtary or science reporter, these days referred to as "chief correspondent" or "editor in chief" to give them gravitas and weight to their veracity. I'm not a particular fan of Domminic Cummings and I suspect his in Downing St will not have much longer to run anyway, regardless of the Durham episode, but I do think that journalist are simply ganging up on him because they can do so and they think he deserves it because he's an arrogant individual who has been contemptuous of them in the past. Likewise journalists are giving voice to others, including Conservative MPs who have an axe to grind - although there are also those who are simply (and perhaps simplistically) responding to their mailbag from constituents.

 

So, I think journalists have become too powerful as well as too untrustworthy, so we need better accountability for what they get up to. I think judges should have the authority to order a journalist to reveal his sources and validate his story, in the same way that judges can order doctors, when they think it necessary, to reveal otherwise confidential information. Maybe there should be a Czar of Journalists who is empowered to force journalist to disclose their source and prove the truth of what they have reported. Maybe Journalists should by law keep records of those from whom they get their stories rather than, as at present, being free to invent a convenient story about this or that member of public who has expressed concern or criticism to them.

 

In summary Journalists have got too powerful for their proper role in society and have too much freedom to spead falsehoods to serve their own purposes.

 

 

[John52]

Well I'm sure a lot of politicians would agree with that.

Without Journalists protecting their sources we would never have found out about their expense fiddles for a start.

[Barryd999]

Ho Ho Ho. Some of us have been pointing out how untrustworthy our media is for years. Its funny though now it seems even the Tory faithful rags are turning on this shambles of a government that some who until this happened have been perfectly happy to post link after link from the Brexpress, Mail and ToryGraph are only now wanting to have a pop at the media.

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

Barryd999 - 2020-05-26 9:43 AM

 

Ho Ho Ho. Some of us have been pointing out how untrustworthy our media is for years. Its funny though now it seems even the Tory faithful rags are turning on this shambles of a government that some who until this happened have been perfectly happy to post link after link from the Brexpress, Mail and ToryGraph are only now wanting to have a pop at the media.

 

 

More fake news from our resident faker ;-) ............

 

The only media you complained about were the few that were pro Brexit (lol) (lol) (lol) .............

 

 

[malc d]

My main concern ( my ONLY concern ) when I hear, or read, something in the media, is whether it's true or not - I'm not so concerned about the source.

 

Journalists can be held accountable - a good example is Boris Johnson who ( I understand ) was sacked from the Times for making stuff up.

When working in Brussels as a journalist, it is reported that he was described by Tory grandee, Chris Patten, as " a great exponent of fake journalism "

( None of which seems to have done him any harm ).

 

( My source is Wiki ).

 

:-|

 

p.s. Quite often sources need protection - not exposure.

[John52]

malc d - 2020-05-26 9:53 AM

 

My main concern ( my ONLY concern ) when I hear, or read, something in the media, is whether it's true or not - I'm not so concerned about the source.

 

Journalists can be held accountable - a good example is Boris Johnson who ( I understand ) was sacked from the Times for making stuff up.

When working in Brussels as a journalist, it is reported that he was described by Tory grandee, Chris Patten, as " a great exponent of fake journalism "

( None of which seems to have done him any harm ).

 

( My source is Wiki ).

 

:-|

 

p.s. Quite often sources need protection - not exposure.

 

Described by his Tutors at Eton as 'idle and complacent' no doubt it was easier to make stuff up - and it suited his readership :-S

[StuartO]

malc d - 2020-05-26 9:53 AM ..... Quite often sources need protection - not exposure.

 

I wasn't suggesting public exposure of sources, just that journalist should have to be accountable to someone, such as a judge or a Czar.

 

Having said that I am sometimes unhappy that the protection which all whistle blowers are supposed to get is open to abuse, as of course the anonymity granted to some accusers, eg of sexual assaults etc. There needs to be an option for judges to decide when it is in the public interest to disclose identities.

[John52]

Cummings said that the media had been told things were wrong but “repeatedly reported them anyway”. How does he reconcile this account with Downing Street’s refusal to engage with attempts by the Guardian and Daily Mirror to seek comment for more than six weeks? Why did Downing Street only issue comments after the publication of key articles by the two newspapers?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/may/25/dominic-cummings-press-conference-leaves-questions-unanswered

[John52]

StuartO - 2020-05-26 11:00 AM

 

I wasn't suggesting public exposure of sources, just that journalist should have to be accountable to someone, such as a judge .

 

and who appoints the judges *-)

[John52]

StuartO - 2020-05-26 11:00 AM

 

 

I wasn't suggesting public exposure of sources,

 

Who could Times 'journalist' BoJo have named as his source when he had made the story up himself *-)

[Birdbrain]

John52 - 2020-05-26 10:42 AM

 

malc d - 2020-05-26 9:53 AM

 

My main concern ( my ONLY concern ) when I hear, or read, something in the media, is whether it's true or not - I'm not so concerned about the source.

 

Journalists can be held accountable - a good example is Boris Johnson who ( I understand ) was sacked from the Times for making stuff up.

When working in Brussels as a journalist, it is reported that he was described by Tory grandee, Chris Patten, as " a great exponent of fake journalism "

( None of which seems to have done him any harm ).

 

( My source is Wiki ).

 

:-|

 

p.s. Quite often sources need protection - not exposure.

 

Described by his Tutors at Eton as 'idle and complacent' no doubt it was easier to make stuff up - and it suited his readership :-S

 

For one described as you say hes done alright hasn't he ... Why do you hate so much

[teflon2]

Basic motto of journalist's " never let the truth stand in the way of a "good?" story."

 

My fathers advice when I were a sprog , 90% of the reports are false 10% are doubtful and check the date they normally get that right. :->