4 ms·
(I'm not taking a side on whether the opiod question is correct, just talking about the process of journalism.) The press's ability as an institution to contra
by ben509 7y ago
(I'm not taking a side on whether the opiod question is correct, just talking about the process of journalism.)
The press's ability as an institution to contradict another institution has practical limits.
In particular, if the broader medical community is largely on board with opiods, for a journalist to write a story, they have to get comments from medical authorities.
If those comments are consistently saying that opiods are necessary and good for pain management, an ethical journalist can't just ignore all those comments and harp on a few outliers.
And for a story to catch on, other journalists have to, in effect, replicate that work: they have to do their own investigations, but they're going to get a similar distribution of comments.
The press can typically focus on an institution if there's a particular scandal involving specific people or entities because then their questions become more targeted.
- macspoofing 7y ago>If those comments are consistently saying that opiods are necessary and good for pain management, an ethical journalist can't just ignore all those comments and harp on a few outliers. They can. And they must. Would you make this same argument when journalists cover fiance or war? In the case of the former, there is usually 'irrational exuberance' that emanates from financial professionals that inevitably leads to a crash. Journalist should just take that at face value when the finance industry says subprime derivatives are great? How about the latter, war. Just because everyone is on-board, should journalists stop asking questions? If all journalism is is a mouthpiece, why do we need it in the age of internet? I can go and read what the various agencies have to say without a middle-man.
- ben509 7y ago> Would you make this same argument when journalists cover fi[n]ance or war? Yes. A journalist's job is to report news, not make it. Activist journalism has virtually destroyed the reputation of the press. What good is any coverage if your audience thinks you're dishonest? > Just because everyone is on-board, should journalists stop asking questions? They should not be distorting their coverage of the answers. > If all journalism is is a mouthpiece, why do we need it in the age of internet? Activist journalism is just a mouthpiece for interest groups.
- macspoofing 7y agoOK. You're arguing a straw-man. Who is actually defending journalists that distort the news?