There are truths, half-truths, and lies.
There's also propaganda by omission.
Not sure if I want to put that one under half-truth. Technically, it's not lying if you leave stuff out....only omission, or partial truth. Pretty much giving some of the information and leaving the rest to be inferred, or speculated upon.
No, it's just politics.
Generally speaking...The quick and easy answer.
Basically using a combination of methods to reach some goal, regardless of consideration for those you are meant to serve. Selfishness.
Outright lies are often caught. Telling only partial truths and allowing people to make assumptions is the most common way to get ahead.
Give the illusion of actually giving a damn, gain trust of the masses, feed them half-truths, twist facts (or at least allow the media to) to guide their way of thinking. Purposely omit facts to persuade opinions. Inject opinions, disguised as fact (many who have trouble knowing the difference).
The easiest way to gain trust of masses is a high state of fear or panic. You step up proclaiming to be that beacon in the dark that knows what's going on in the confusion, of course they'll put trust in you. Give them a boogeyman.
There are truths, half-truths, and lies.
There's also propaganda by omission.
Not sure if I want to put that one under half-truth. Technically, it's not lying if you leave stuff out....only omission, or partial truth. Pretty much giving some of the information and leaving the rest to be inferred, or speculated upon.I think when you are talking about the media, omission of relevant facts and issues really comes under the heading of lying. Given their duty and their role in a so-called democracy, it's deliberate distortion designed to deceive.
But the media doesn't do journalism anymore. Look at how they cheerlead the war on Wikileaks. Julian Assange is being assassinated by "journalists" purely for the crime of committing actual journalism.
I've always considered that just half-truth. Lying is telling something totally different from truth, but omitting facts would leave only some truth and the rest to be inferred. Kinda like a wild night on the town with the guys. It's technically not lying to tell the wife or girlfriend that you went out for a few drinks, but leave out the fact that it was at a strip club. It would be a lie if she asked where and another answer given. It's being deceptive without lying. The media is the same way. They will leave out important facts, or just provide the ones that they choose. Choosing to say that a dictator at one time was buying weapons, but leaving out the fact that they currently weren't are two things. Saying that they "may be" working on a nuclear bomb isn't the same as saying "they are". By saying, "This person was at one time buying uranium and may be working on a nuclear bomb", it infers that they are currently doing so and are an imminent danger. If you want to convince the public, simply provide facts from the past to back that up. If you can provide hard facts to support a past of buying such things, then that's what the public will focus on most. If you omit some facts that would soften the impact of the story, leave them out, but it wouldn't be lying. It depends on what you want to accomplish. Being deceptive, yes, totally. Lying in the sense that they advertise being fair, unbiased, etc, but their actions speak otherwise. The use of euphemism is another thing, and it is very common. A betrayal of the trust of the People, same as those who are elected to be "public servants". If candidates truly felt they want to do what's best for the country, and not pursue their own goals, they wouldn't want to be president so badly. If really done right, I'm sure it is a lot of work and dedication. It requires making decisions best for the People, not personal advancement, profits, profits of corporations/friends, etc.
Unfortunately, journalism is going that way for many. There's an agenda for pretty much all, especially with the big corps with politicians in their pockets, or if they own stake/stock in an outlet, or are friends with the big guys in charge of the companies. I agree with Julian, but people don't understand the situation. What he did was try to expose corruption. The downside to that is he is being branded a danger by exposing names, etc.. Funny how the one who uncovered Valerie Plame's name wasn't dealt with so harshly. While some things would be best left out, you can still put enough info out there to show corruption. It's easy to brand this man a terrorist by speaking only of dangers of his actions, and simply leaving out what can be found about corruption. It's changing focus from one issue to another, and people totally forget about the other (corruption). People here mostly remain afraid of the world around them, and they will seek comfort and security, regardless of consequences. Being truly secure is only an illusion; any lock can be picked or broken, any room can be breached with the right tools, time, and determination. I can't believe in 100% security, so I must learn to live with that knowledge and not be paranoid.
As for the democracy thing...A democracy is majority rule. I don't remember ever voting on a law with the rest of the People. We elect people to represent us and make those laws in our best interest. Unfortunately, that's not what is being done. Democracies were spoken out against, since there's the potential for the little guy to get no say. I also fear the ignorance of the masses.
I support Julian Assange but you can't really call him a "journalist" per say. Posting pages of documents and facts is not writing.
Unearthing duplicity and wrongdoing by the powerful is, or should be, the primary task of journalists.
Writing is creating; simply producing documents is another thing. Yes, a journalist's task involves digging for facts and investigating something. What they find (facts found through investigations) is what is written in their works. A good journalist should also be free of biased and focus only on presenting facts. Many pieces of journalism are presented as fact, and do contain many facts. However, opinions are also put into the mix. This is what sways public opinion, instead of allowing them to draw their own conclusions.
Unearthing duplicity and wrongdoing by the powerful is, or should be, the primary task of journalists.
It used to be but that is no longer the case. Because of the role that they once played, they were called the "Fourth Estate" or the 4th branch of government. We no longer have reporters who report just the facts. They all want to be commentators with their own spin on everything they cover.
Actions
Back to TopicsReply to TopicShare this topic
Get paid just by sending us users/traffic.
Signup takes seconds, start now!
Signup as an affiliate!