CDZ Do the masses know what journalism is?

[usmbguest5318]

Do the masses know what journalism is? My answer is that by and large, I don't think so. Moreover, I don't think Donald Trump and his supporters do. Of if they do, they're deliberately ignoring their awareness of what it is.

Donald Trump has since last year been on a tirade about "the media." He recently declared unilaterally from his "bully pulpit" that the Fourth Estate is an enemy of the American people. Every day we hear the phrase "fake news." Frankly I don't buy any of that crap, and here's why.

Just because information is shared via a news outlet does not in any way in any way make the information be news, nor is the publisher asserting that all the information it shares is news, although all of it is journalism. Journalism is a discipline whereof its practitioners -- journalists -- perform five categories of journalistic activity (journalism):

1. Investigative reporting/journalism (not editorial)
   • Investigative journalism aims to uncover the truth about a particular subject, person, or event. While investigative journalism is based on the basic principle underlying all journalism-verification and accurate presentation of facts-investigative reporters must often work with uncooperative or recalcitrant sources who do not wish to divulge information. Renowned investigative journalism, such as Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein’s uncovering of the Watergate scandal, can upend major institutions and significantly influence public life.
2. News reporting/journalism (not editorial, except when they sneak in some opinion or conjecture)
   • News journalism is straightforward. Facts are relayed without flourishes or interpretation. A typical news story often constitutes a headline with just enough explanation to orient the reader. News stories lack the depth of a feature story, or the questioning approach of an investigative story. Rather, they relay facts, events and information to society in a straightforward, accurate and unbiased manner.
3. Reviews (editorial)
   • Reviews are partly opinion and partly fact based. The review needs to accomplish two things: one, accurately describe or identify the subject being reviewed, and two, provide an intelligent and informed opinion of the subject, based on research and experience.
4. Columns (editorial)
   • Columns are based primarily on the personality of the author, allowing him or her to write about subjects in a personal style. Column writers can take a humorous approach, or specialise in a particular subject area or topic. It’s important for columnists to develop their own voice that is recognisable by their readership. Columnists can interpret events or issues or write about their own personal experiences or thoughts. Columns are usually published weekly.
5. Feature reporting/writing (can be a mix of news and editorial writing)
   • Feature writing provides scope, depth, and interpretation of trends, events, topics or people. Features aim not only to thoroughly explore a topic by conducting interviews with numerous experts or the key people involved, but to offer a previously unseen perspective on an event, issue, or person. Feature writing commonly wins prestigious awards when it manages to achieve this goal. Features usually have the highest word count of all journalism types.

When I watch the news, read a paper or magazine, a journal paper or lecture transcript, I have to consider whether I'm reading an opinion piece or a news piece. I imagine everyone must do the same, but if one doesn't know what are the various types of journalism, one can't make that assessment.

Donald Trump seems among the people who don't actually know the differences between the types of journalism, for he has not, to my knowledge, identified any specific news stories that he considers to be "fake news." Instead, in complete disregard of the fact that they produce pieces of all five genres, he brands entire outlets as "fake news." Alternatively, he declares an entire topic of discussion as "fake news." There's no telling, however, what "fake news" specifically means to Trump and Trumpkins, unless, of course, they expressly define the term. I have yet to see such a definition. Maybe it exists.

By my gleaning, Trump and Trumpkins consider as "fake news" anything not expressly adulatory of Trump and his policies. If a journalist accurately and completely reports a set of events, facts or statements, it's declared "fake news" if it has the potential to harm Trump's presidency/Administration. If a journalist reports information that shows the inaccuracy and/or imprecision of a Trump or Trump Admin. employee's statement, it's declared "fake news." I'm sorry, but such declarations fly in the face of integrity.

Sure, news organizations also have commentators whom they pay to editorialize. Often, their columns aren't news at all, and neither are they trying to be news. Whether it's "fake news" or not isn't even something to consider in such cases as it's a given from the outset that the writer is editorializing, opining.

When a news and information outlet publishes what is meant to be a news piece, audience members yet must receive the information with a critical ear/eye. (Not a criticizing one, but a critical one.) There are clearly instances of wholly made up information and that is rightly called "fake news." A good deal farther down on the spectrum of mischaracterizations in news reporting, yet more insidious because it's so subtle, is the introduction of "coloring" terms into a news piece that "word by word" diminish the story's objectivity. One can see that displayed in the following excerpt from a legitimate news report.

"Perhaps no nation on Earth is more committed to accepting foreign migrants and refugees than Sweden. In 2016 alone, the country accepted more than 160K asylum seekers, despite having a population of less than 10M people. Only 500 of these migrants were able to get jobs in Sweden, but if these arrivals aren't able to work, they're at least able to commit crimes."
​

The narrative above isn't grossly slanted, but it's not purely objective. The statements create an impression that goes beyond the mere telling of events. Do you see the words that do that? It takes very good listening/reading skills to pick up on them, but they are there and they work as intended, which is to say they add connotation to the statements in which they appear. Indeed, that is the very purpose of those words existence in the English language.

The one type of journalism, more than any other, that nobody likes to be the subject of, or even materially connected to, is investigative journalism. This is the type of journalism that the public most needs because it's what informs them of gross misconduct by the people in whom society has placed its greatest degrees of trust. This is the type of news that Trump will call "fake" the instant he gets whiff that such a news story about him is about to break. The public, however, need to know that this type of journalism isn't produced to ruin its object and that it is produced to inform the public and let them decide whether they care about the malfeasance the journalist has uncovered. Care or don't care, but we deserve to know the full story. The only people, aside from law enforcement and they aren't exactly neutral seeing as their goal is to prosecute rather than merely "find out," in our society who have the means to uncover the information.

What strikes me as the biggest problems, however, are:

1. The masses these days have this notion that whatever and all information comes their way is opinion. It seems they cannot tell when a speaker/writer is sharing an opinion and when they are sharing facts and findings.
2. The masses these days appear unable to tell what information is credibly supported. If they don't like the information that comes their way, they declare and discount it as "just an opinion." That wouldn't be a problem except for the fact that opinions supported by the preponderance of evidence rightly must take precedence over less profoundly substantiated ones. Sadly, however, it seems that the opinion that gets the most "likes" is the one that prevails. That's a dangerous way to run a society.
3. The masses aren't well schooled in the processes and techniques of rigorous reasoning. The list of logical fallacies is long, but many folks seem familiar with even half of the fallacious approaches to argument, to say nothing of the other half. That rational naivete leave people vulnerable to all sorts of manipulation. Again, not a good thing.

 

[Indeependent]

Uh huh.

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

What strikes me as the biggest problems, however, are:

1. The masses these days have this notion that whatever and all information comes their way is opinion. It seems they cannot tell when a speaker/writer is sharing an opinion and when they are sharing facts and findings.
2. The masses these days appear unable to tell what information is credibly supported. If they don't like the information that comes their way, they declare and discount it as "just an opinion." That wouldn't be a problem except for the fact that opinions supported by the preponderance of evidence rightly must take precedence over less profoundly substantiated ones. Sadly, however, it seems that the opinion that gets the most "likes" is the one that prevails. That's a dangerous way to run a society.
3. The masses aren't well schooled in the processes and techniques of rigorous reasoning. The list of logical fallacies is long, but many folks seem familiar with even half of the fallacious approaches to argument, to say nothing of the other half. That rational naivete leave people vulnerable to all sorts of manipulation. Again, not a good thing.

Looks to me like you've exempted the media from the shortcomings of "the masses".

Judging from the slipshod and incomprehensibly biased nature of the reportage we've received from them, it would appear that, rather than being exempt, these shortcomings apply to them even more so.

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

 

[Dale Smith]

Do the masses know what journalism is? My answer is that by and large, I don't think so. Moreover, I don't think Donald Trump and his supporters do. Of if they do, they're deliberately ignoring their awareness of what it is.

Donald Trump has since last year been on a tirade about "the media." He recently declared unilaterally from his "bully pulpit" that the Fourth Estate is an enemy of the American people. Every day we hear the phrase "fake news." Frankly I don't buy any of that crap, and here's why.

Just because information is shared via a news outlet does not in any way in any way make the information be news, nor is the publisher asserting that all the information it shares is news, although all of it is journalism. Journalism is a discipline whereof its practitioners -- journalists -- perform five categories of journalistic activity (journalism):

1. Investigative reporting/journalism (not editorial)
   • Investigative journalism aims to uncover the truth about a particular subject, person, or event. While investigative journalism is based on the basic principle underlying all journalism-verification and accurate presentation of facts-investigative reporters must often work with uncooperative or recalcitrant sources who do not wish to divulge information. Renowned investigative journalism, such as Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein’s uncovering of the Watergate scandal, can upend major institutions and significantly influence public life.
2. News reporting/journalism (not editorial, except when they sneak in some opinion or conjecture)
   • News journalism is straightforward. Facts are relayed without flourishes or interpretation. A typical news story often constitutes a headline with just enough explanation to orient the reader. News stories lack the depth of a feature story, or the questioning approach of an investigative story. Rather, they relay facts, events and information to society in a straightforward, accurate and unbiased manner.
3. Reviews (editorial)
   • Reviews are partly opinion and partly fact based. The review needs to accomplish two things: one, accurately describe or identify the subject being reviewed, and two, provide an intelligent and informed opinion of the subject, based on research and experience.
4. Columns (editorial)
   • Columns are based primarily on the personality of the author, allowing him or her to write about subjects in a personal style. Column writers can take a humorous approach, or specialise in a particular subject area or topic. It’s important for columnists to develop their own voice that is recognisable by their readership. Columnists can interpret events or issues or write about their own personal experiences or thoughts. Columns are usually published weekly.
5. Feature reporting/writing (can be a mix of news and editorial writing)
   • Feature writing provides scope, depth, and interpretation of trends, events, topics or people. Features aim not only to thoroughly explore a topic by conducting interviews with numerous experts or the key people involved, but to offer a previously unseen perspective on an event, issue, or person. Feature writing commonly wins prestigious awards when it manages to achieve this goal. Features usually have the highest word count of all journalism types.

When I watch the news, read a paper or magazine, a journal paper or lecture transcript, I have to consider whether I'm reading an opinion piece or a news piece. I imagine everyone must do the same, but if one doesn't know what are the various types of journalism, one can't make that assessment.

Donald Trump seems among the people who don't actually know the differences between the types of journalism, for he has not, to my knowledge, identified any specific news stories that he considers to be "fake news." Instead, in complete disregard of the fact that they produce pieces of all five genres, he brands entire outlets as "fake news." Alternatively, he declares an entire topic of discussion as "fake news." There's no telling, however, what "fake news" specifically means to Trump and Trumpkins, unless, of course, they expressly define the term. I have yet to see such a definition. Maybe it exists.

By my gleaning, Trump and Trumpkins consider as "fake news" anything not expressly adulatory of Trump and his policies. If a journalist accurately and completely reports a set of events, facts or statements, it's declared "fake news" if it has the potential to harm Trump's presidency/Administration. If a journalist reports information that shows the inaccuracy and/or imprecision of a Trump or Trump Admin. employee's statement, it's declared "fake news." I'm sorry, but such declarations fly in the face of integrity.

Sure, news organizations also have commentators whom they pay to editorialize. Often, their columns aren't news at all, and neither are they trying to be news. Whether it's "fake news" or not isn't even something to consider in such cases as it's a given from the outset that the writer is editorializing, opining.

When a news and information outlet publishes what is meant to be a news piece, audience members yet must receive the information with a critical ear/eye. (Not a criticizing one, but a critical one.) There are clearly instances of wholly made up information and that is rightly called "fake news." A good deal farther down on the spectrum of mischaracterizations in news reporting, yet more insidious because it's so subtle, is the introduction of "coloring" terms into a news piece that "word by word" diminish the story's objectivity. One can see that displayed in the following excerpt from a legitimate news report.

"Perhaps no nation on Earth is more committed to accepting foreign migrants and refugees than Sweden. In 2016 alone, the country accepted more than 160K asylum seekers, despite having a population of less than 10M people. Only 500 of these migrants were able to get jobs in Sweden, but if these arrivals aren't able to work, they're at least able to commit crimes."
​

The narrative above isn't grossly slanted, but it's not purely objective. The statements create an impression that goes beyond the mere telling of events. Do you see the words that do that? It takes very good listening/reading skills to pick up on them, but they are there and they work as intended, which is to say they add connotation to the statements in which they appear. Indeed, that is the very purpose of those words existence in the English language.

The one type of journalism, more than any other, that nobody likes to be the subject of, or even materially connected to, is investigative journalism. This is the type of journalism that the public most needs because it's what informs them of gross misconduct by the people in whom society has placed its greatest degrees of trust. This is the type of news that Trump will call "fake" the instant he gets whiff that such a news story about him is about to break. The public, however, need to know that this type of journalism isn't produced to ruin its object and that it is produced to inform the public and let them decide whether they care about the malfeasance the journalist has uncovered. Care or don't care, but we deserve to know the full story. The only people, aside from law enforcement and they aren't exactly neutral seeing as their goal is to prosecute rather than merely "find out," in our society who have the means to uncover the information.

What strikes me as the biggest problems, however, are:

1. The masses these days have this notion that whatever and all information comes their way is opinion. It seems they cannot tell when a speaker/writer is sharing an opinion and when they are sharing facts and findings.
2. The masses these days appear unable to tell what information is credibly supported. If they don't like the information that comes their way, they declare and discount it as "just an opinion." That wouldn't be a problem except for the fact that opinions supported by the preponderance of evidence rightly must take precedence over less profoundly substantiated ones. Sadly, however, it seems that the opinion that gets the most "likes" is the one that prevails. That's a dangerous way to run a society.
3. The masses aren't well schooled in the processes and techniques of rigorous reasoning. The list of logical fallacies is long, but many folks seem familiar with even half of the fallacious approaches to argument, to say nothing of the other half. That rational naivete leave people vulnerable to all sorts of manipulation. Again, not a good thing.

The global elite (i.e the international bankers) started buying up the most influential papers back in 1917 to sell the people on the Federal Reserve central bank. They found that all they needed to sway public opinion was to buy 25 of them. This program has continued from radio to TV. 90 percent of ALL media is owned by 6 huge conglomerates whose heads have a seat on the CFR and belong to the Committee of 300. They decide what is news and they decide what spin is going to be put on it in order to sway the masses. The CIA (working behalf of the global elite deep state") had Operation Mockingbird that was a plan to further infiltrate the media with CIA operatives and this came came out with the Church Committee hearings.

There isn't anything that I believe as it pertains to the bought and paid for lamestream media. I know exactly how the game works because if you control the narrative, you control the debate and anyone that steps up to challenge it is marginalized and demonized. The lamestream media would never allow someone like myself to be on one of their shows for an honest debate because debate is not welcome nor is dissenting points of view that they can't control....it's just how it is.

Famous David Rockefeller quote and CFR head and the one that started the Trilateral Commission with Zbigniew Brzenzski.
"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years."

"It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries."

 

[Never3ndr]

What strikes me as the biggest problems, however, are:

1. The masses these days have this notion that whatever and all information comes their way is opinion. It seems they cannot tell when a speaker/writer is sharing an opinion and when they are sharing facts and findings.
2. The masses these days appear unable to tell what information is credibly supported. If they don't like the information that comes their way, they declare and discount it as "just an opinion." That wouldn't be a problem except for the fact that opinions supported by the preponderance of evidence rightly must take precedence over less profoundly substantiated ones. Sadly, however, it seems that the opinion that gets the most "likes" is the one that prevails. That's a dangerous way to run a society.
3. The masses aren't well schooled in the processes and techniques of rigorous reasoning. The list of logical fallacies is long, but many folks seem familiar with even half of the fallacious approaches to argument, to say nothing of the other half. That rational naivete leave people vulnerable to all sorts of manipulation. Again, not a good thing.

Looks to me like you've exempted the media from the shortcomings of "the masses".

Judging from the slipshod and incomprehensibly biased nature of the reportage we've received from them, it would appear that, rather than being exempt, these shortcomings apply to them even more so.

I would generally agree that our media is not what it should, in theory, be.

However, "the masses" actually adhere to what the media feeds them pretty closely. The issue is that we have so many media sources that "the masses" are allowed to pick and choose their information sources so they choose the ones that support their worldview and disregard any others. People are always going to have to get their information from somewhere. Our media environment today has allowed for the right to adhere to the dogma of Fox News, Conservative talk show hosts, and a couple of radical news aggregators like Brietbart or InfoWars. The left get their media from CNN, MSNBC, and online sources like the HuffPost.

We need a central agency to vet the news sources because the huge pool of media sources has allowed for people to operate off of information that may not even be picked up by their opposition media sources.

 

[jwoodie]

Looks to me like you've exempted the media from the shortcomings of "the masses".

Judging from the slipshod and incomprehensibly biased nature of the reportage we've received from them, it would appear that, rather than being exempt, these shortcomings apply to them even more so.

Whereas the masses are simply ignorant, most of the media is malevolent in its efforts to manipulate public opinion. Among other things, the OP conveniently ignores the decisions of the MSM as to what stories they cover and what stories they intentionally ignore (a classic propaganda technique).

 

[Never3ndr]

Looks to me like you've exempted the media from the shortcomings of "the masses".

Judging from the slipshod and incomprehensibly biased nature of the reportage we've received from them, it would appear that, rather than being exempt, these shortcomings apply to them even more so.

Whereas the masses are simply ignorant, most of the media is malevolent in its efforts to manipulate public opinion. Among other things, the OP conveniently ignores the decisions of the MSM as to what stories they cover and what stories they intentionally ignore (a classic propaganda technique).

I don't actually think of the media as malicious in their intent. They are simply operators in the market we have set up for them. They NEED views / clicks in order to survive. If they do not get airtime or circulation, they are going to go out of business. The best way to do that is to cater to a (hopefully large) specific audience.

Spoiled Americans have shown that they are unwilling to hear things that they do not like...the easy point in case would be Trumpers' refusal to consume media sources from the left (CNN / NYT) even though they may offer a unique perspective not shown in their own media sources. (The reverse is also true where you rarely will find a liberal who regularly consumes Fox News). So, if you air things that people don't agree with, true or not, you are going to lose viewers / clicks. The only way to really get media to change their actions is to somehow change the environment in which they operate. The easiest answer, in my opinion, would be some sort of oversight body...although somebody may be able to create a way to take them out of the free market entirely...although I have no clue how that would work.

 

[TNHarley]

Probably not. Hell, neither do a lot of journalists...

 

[oldsoul]

What strikes me as the biggest problems, however, are:

1. The masses these days have this notion that whatever and all information comes their way is opinion. It seems they cannot tell when a speaker/writer is sharing an opinion and when they are sharing facts and findings.
2. The masses these days appear unable to tell what information is credibly supported. If they don't like the information that comes their way, they declare and discount it as "just an opinion." That wouldn't be a problem except for the fact that opinions supported by the preponderance of evidence rightly must take precedence over less profoundly substantiated ones. Sadly, however, it seems that the opinion that gets the most "likes" is the one that prevails. That's a dangerous way to run a society.
3. The masses aren't well schooled in the processes and techniques of rigorous reasoning. The list of logical fallacies is long, but many folks seem familiar with even half of the fallacious approaches to argument, to say nothing of the other half. That rational naivete leave people vulnerable to all sorts of manipulation. Again, not a good thing.

Looks to me like you've exempted the media from the shortcomings of "the masses".

Judging from the slipshod and incomprehensibly biased nature of the reportage we've received from them, it would appear that, rather than being exempt, these shortcomings apply to them even more so.

I would generally agree that our media is not what it should, in theory, be.

However, "the masses" actually adhere to what the media feeds them pretty closely. The issue is that we have so many media sources that "the masses" are allowed to pick and choose their information sources so they choose the ones that support their worldview and disregard any others. People are always going to have to get their information from somewhere. Our media environment today has allowed for the right to adhere to the dogma of Fox News, Conservative talk show hosts, and a couple of radical news aggregators like Brietbart or InfoWars. The left get their media from CNN, MSNBC, and online sources like the HuffPost.

We need a central agency to vet the news sources because the huge pool of media sources has allowed for people to operate off of information that may not even be picked up by their opposition media sources.

I seriously hope that I am misunderstanding you here. What it seems as though you are advocating is a Government run (or at least "monitored") media. Please explain to me how I am incorrect.

 

[oldsoul]

Probably not. Hell, neither do a lot of journalists...

Here, here.

 

[oldsoul]

Looks to me like you've exempted the media from the shortcomings of "the masses".

Judging from the slipshod and incomprehensibly biased nature of the reportage we've received from them, it would appear that, rather than being exempt, these shortcomings apply to them even more so.

Whereas the masses are simply ignorant, most of the media is malevolent in its efforts to manipulate public opinion. Among other things, the OP conveniently ignores the decisions of the MSM as to what stories they cover and what stories they intentionally ignore (a classic propaganda technique).

I don't actually think of the media as malicious in their intent. They are simply operators in the market we have set up for them. They NEED views / clicks in order to survive. If they do not get airtime or circulation, they are going to go out of business. The best way to do that is to cater to a (hopefully large) specific audience.

Spoiled Americans have shown that they are unwilling to hear things that they do not like...the easy point in case would be Trumpers' refusal to consume media sources from the left (CNN / NYT) even though they may offer a unique perspective not shown in their own media sources. (The reverse is also true where you rarely will find a liberal who regularly consumes Fox News). So, if you air things that people don't agree with, true or not, you are going to lose viewers / clicks. The only way to really get media to change their actions is to somehow change the environment in which they operate. The easiest answer, in my opinion, would be some sort of oversight body...although somebody may be able to create a way to take them out of the free market entirely...although I have no clue how that would work.

So, some clarification here. I still do not see how you are not advocating for state run media....

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

Whereas the masses are simply ignorant, most of the media is malevolent in its efforts to manipulate public opinion. Among other things, the OP conveniently ignores the decisions of the MSM as to what stories they cover and what stories they intentionally ignore (a classic propaganda technique).

I think that there's a pretty even distribution if ignorance throughout humankind, up to and including in the media.

That the media adds to this ignorance the practice of heavily favoring one side over the other, makes the ignorance malignant.

 

[danielpalos]

wikileaks, is all we need.

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

I would generally agree that our media is not what it should, in theory, be.

However, "the masses" actually adhere to what the media feeds them pretty closely. The issue is that we have so many media sources that "the masses" are allowed to pick and choose their information sources so they choose the ones that support their worldview and disregard any others. People are always going to have to get their information from somewhere. Our media environment today has allowed for the right to adhere to the dogma of Fox News, Conservative talk show hosts, and a couple of radical news aggregators like Brietbart or InfoWars. The left get their media from CNN, MSNBC, and online sources like the HuffPost.

This still does not exempt the media form the human shortcomings being ascribed in the OP to "the masses". In fact, being in such a relatively small and constitutionally protected clique would, in my opinion, tend to attract people with those shortcomings.

We need a central agency to vet the news sources because the huge pool of media sources has allowed for people to operate off of information that may not even be picked up by their opposition media sources.

Ah, so "people" (excluding yourself of course) are so dumb that we need a Ministry of Truth, huh?

 

[boedicca]

Do the masses know what journalism is? My answer is that by and large, I don't think so. Moreover, I don't think Donald Trump and his supporters do. Of if they do, they're deliberately ignoring their awareness of what it is.

Donald Trump has since last year been on a tirade about "the media." He recently declared unilaterally from his "bully pulpit" that the Fourth Estate is an enemy of the American people. Every day we hear the phrase "fake news." Frankly I don't buy any of that crap, and here's why.

Just because information is shared via a news outlet does not in any way in any way make the information be news, nor is the publisher asserting that all the information it shares is news, although all of it is journalism. Journalism is a discipline whereof its practitioners -- journalists -- perform five categories of journalistic activity (journalism):

1. Investigative reporting/journalism (not editorial)
   • Investigative journalism aims to uncover the truth about a particular subject, person, or event. While investigative journalism is based on the basic principle underlying all journalism-verification and accurate presentation of facts-investigative reporters must often work with uncooperative or recalcitrant sources who do not wish to divulge information. Renowned investigative journalism, such as Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein’s uncovering of the Watergate scandal, can upend major institutions and significantly influence public life.
2. News reporting/journalism (not editorial, except when they sneak in some opinion or conjecture)
   • News journalism is straightforward. Facts are relayed without flourishes or interpretation. A typical news story often constitutes a headline with just enough explanation to orient the reader. News stories lack the depth of a feature story, or the questioning approach of an investigative story. Rather, they relay facts, events and information to society in a straightforward, accurate and unbiased manner.
3. Reviews (editorial)
   • Reviews are partly opinion and partly fact based. The review needs to accomplish two things: one, accurately describe or identify the subject being reviewed, and two, provide an intelligent and informed opinion of the subject, based on research and experience.
4. Columns (editorial)
   • Columns are based primarily on the personality of the author, allowing him or her to write about subjects in a personal style. Column writers can take a humorous approach, or specialise in a particular subject area or topic. It’s important for columnists to develop their own voice that is recognisable by their readership. Columnists can interpret events or issues or write about their own personal experiences or thoughts. Columns are usually published weekly.
5. Feature reporting/writing (can be a mix of news and editorial writing)
   • Feature writing provides scope, depth, and interpretation of trends, events, topics or people. Features aim not only to thoroughly explore a topic by conducting interviews with numerous experts or the key people involved, but to offer a previously unseen perspective on an event, issue, or person. Feature writing commonly wins prestigious awards when it manages to achieve this goal. Features usually have the highest word count of all journalism types.

When I watch the news, read a paper or magazine, a journal paper or lecture transcript, I have to consider whether I'm reading an opinion piece or a news piece. I imagine everyone must do the same, but if one doesn't know what are the various types of journalism, one can't make that assessment.

Donald Trump seems among the people who don't actually know the differences between the types of journalism, for he has not, to my knowledge, identified any specific news stories that he considers to be "fake news." Instead, in complete disregard of the fact that they produce pieces of all five genres, he brands entire outlets as "fake news." Alternatively, he declares an entire topic of discussion as "fake news." There's no telling, however, what "fake news" specifically means to Trump and Trumpkins, unless, of course, they expressly define the term. I have yet to see such a definition. Maybe it exists.

By my gleaning, Trump and Trumpkins consider as "fake news" anything not expressly adulatory of Trump and his policies. If a journalist accurately and completely reports a set of events, facts or statements, it's declared "fake news" if it has the potential to harm Trump's presidency/Administration. If a journalist reports information that shows the inaccuracy and/or imprecision of a Trump or Trump Admin. employee's statement, it's declared "fake news." I'm sorry, but such declarations fly in the face of integrity.

Sure, news organizations also have commentators whom they pay to editorialize. Often, their columns aren't news at all, and neither are they trying to be news. Whether it's "fake news" or not isn't even something to consider in such cases as it's a given from the outset that the writer is editorializing, opining.

When a news and information outlet publishes what is meant to be a news piece, audience members yet must receive the information with a critical ear/eye. (Not a criticizing one, but a critical one.) There are clearly instances of wholly made up information and that is rightly called "fake news." A good deal farther down on the spectrum of mischaracterizations in news reporting, yet more insidious because it's so subtle, is the introduction of "coloring" terms into a news piece that "word by word" diminish the story's objectivity. One can see that displayed in the following excerpt from a legitimate news report.

"Perhaps no nation on Earth is more committed to accepting foreign migrants and refugees than Sweden. In 2016 alone, the country accepted more than 160K asylum seekers, despite having a population of less than 10M people. Only 500 of these migrants were able to get jobs in Sweden, but if these arrivals aren't able to work, they're at least able to commit crimes."
​

The narrative above isn't grossly slanted, but it's not purely objective. The statements create an impression that goes beyond the mere telling of events. Do you see the words that do that? It takes very good listening/reading skills to pick up on them, but they are there and they work as intended, which is to say they add connotation to the statements in which they appear. Indeed, that is the very purpose of those words existence in the English language.

The one type of journalism, more than any other, that nobody likes to be the subject of, or even materially connected to, is investigative journalism. This is the type of journalism that the public most needs because it's what informs them of gross misconduct by the people in whom society has placed its greatest degrees of trust. This is the type of news that Trump will call "fake" the instant he gets whiff that such a news story about him is about to break. The public, however, need to know that this type of journalism isn't produced to ruin its object and that it is produced to inform the public and let them decide whether they care about the malfeasance the journalist has uncovered. Care or don't care, but we deserve to know the full story. The only people, aside from law enforcement and they aren't exactly neutral seeing as their goal is to prosecute rather than merely "find out," in our society who have the means to uncover the information.

What strikes me as the biggest problems, however, are:

1. The masses these days have this notion that whatever and all information comes their way is opinion. It seems they cannot tell when a speaker/writer is sharing an opinion and when they are sharing facts and findings.
2. The masses these days appear unable to tell what information is credibly supported. If they don't like the information that comes their way, they declare and discount it as "just an opinion." That wouldn't be a problem except for the fact that opinions supported by the preponderance of evidence rightly must take precedence over less profoundly substantiated ones. Sadly, however, it seems that the opinion that gets the most "likes" is the one that prevails. That's a dangerous way to run a society.
3. The masses aren't well schooled in the processes and techniques of rigorous reasoning. The list of logical fallacies is long, but many folks seem familiar with even half of the fallacious approaches to argument, to say nothing of the other half. That rational naivete leave people vulnerable to all sorts of manipulation. Again, not a good thing.

Methinks you disdain the masses which is exactly why Trump won.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Do the masses know what journalism is? My answer is that by and large, I don't think so. Moreover, I don't think Donald Trump and his supporters do. Of if they do, they're deliberately ignoring their awareness of what it is.

Donald Trump has since last year been on a tirade about "the media." He recently declared unilaterally from his "bully pulpit" that the Fourth Estate is an enemy of the American people. Every day we hear the phrase "fake news." Frankly I don't buy any of that crap, and here's why.

Just because information is shared via a news outlet does not in any way in any way make the information be news, nor is the publisher asserting that all the information it shares is news, although all of it is journalism. Journalism is a discipline whereof its practitioners -- journalists -- perform five categories of journalistic activity (journalism):

1. Investigative reporting/journalism (not editorial)
   • Investigative journalism aims to uncover the truth about a particular subject, person, or event. While investigative journalism is based on the basic principle underlying all journalism-verification and accurate presentation of facts-investigative reporters must often work with uncooperative or recalcitrant sources who do not wish to divulge information. Renowned investigative journalism, such as Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein’s uncovering of the Watergate scandal, can upend major institutions and significantly influence public life.
2. News reporting/journalism (not editorial, except when they sneak in some opinion or conjecture)
   • News journalism is straightforward. Facts are relayed without flourishes or interpretation. A typical news story often constitutes a headline with just enough explanation to orient the reader. News stories lack the depth of a feature story, or the questioning approach of an investigative story. Rather, they relay facts, events and information to society in a straightforward, accurate and unbiased manner.
3. Reviews (editorial)
   • Reviews are partly opinion and partly fact based. The review needs to accomplish two things: one, accurately describe or identify the subject being reviewed, and two, provide an intelligent and informed opinion of the subject, based on research and experience.
4. Columns (editorial)
   • Columns are based primarily on the personality of the author, allowing him or her to write about subjects in a personal style. Column writers can take a humorous approach, or specialise in a particular subject area or topic. It’s important for columnists to develop their own voice that is recognisable by their readership. Columnists can interpret events or issues or write about their own personal experiences or thoughts. Columns are usually published weekly.
5. Feature reporting/writing (can be a mix of news and editorial writing)
   • Feature writing provides scope, depth, and interpretation of trends, events, topics or people. Features aim not only to thoroughly explore a topic by conducting interviews with numerous experts or the key people involved, but to offer a previously unseen perspective on an event, issue, or person. Feature writing commonly wins prestigious awards when it manages to achieve this goal. Features usually have the highest word count of all journalism types.

When I watch the news, read a paper or magazine, a journal paper or lecture transcript, I have to consider whether I'm reading an opinion piece or a news piece. I imagine everyone must do the same, but if one doesn't know what are the various types of journalism, one can't make that assessment.

Donald Trump seems among the people who don't actually know the differences between the types of journalism, for he has not, to my knowledge, identified any specific news stories that he considers to be "fake news." Instead, in complete disregard of the fact that they produce pieces of all five genres, he brands entire outlets as "fake news." Alternatively, he declares an entire topic of discussion as "fake news." There's no telling, however, what "fake news" specifically means to Trump and Trumpkins, unless, of course, they expressly define the term. I have yet to see such a definition. Maybe it exists.

By my gleaning, Trump and Trumpkins consider as "fake news" anything not expressly adulatory of Trump and his policies. If a journalist accurately and completely reports a set of events, facts or statements, it's declared "fake news" if it has the potential to harm Trump's presidency/Administration. If a journalist reports information that shows the inaccuracy and/or imprecision of a Trump or Trump Admin. employee's statement, it's declared "fake news." I'm sorry, but such declarations fly in the face of integrity.

Sure, news organizations also have commentators whom they pay to editorialize. Often, their columns aren't news at all, and neither are they trying to be news. Whether it's "fake news" or not isn't even something to consider in such cases as it's a given from the outset that the writer is editorializing, opining.

When a news and information outlet publishes what is meant to be a news piece, audience members yet must receive the information with a critical ear/eye. (Not a criticizing one, but a critical one.) There are clearly instances of wholly made up information and that is rightly called "fake news." A good deal farther down on the spectrum of mischaracterizations in news reporting, yet more insidious because it's so subtle, is the introduction of "coloring" terms into a news piece that "word by word" diminish the story's objectivity. One can see that displayed in the following excerpt from a legitimate news report.

"Perhaps no nation on Earth is more committed to accepting foreign migrants and refugees than Sweden. In 2016 alone, the country accepted more than 160K asylum seekers, despite having a population of less than 10M people. Only 500 of these migrants were able to get jobs in Sweden, but if these arrivals aren't able to work, they're at least able to commit crimes."
​

The narrative above isn't grossly slanted, but it's not purely objective. The statements create an impression that goes beyond the mere telling of events. Do you see the words that do that? It takes very good listening/reading skills to pick up on them, but they are there and they work as intended, which is to say they add connotation to the statements in which they appear. Indeed, that is the very purpose of those words existence in the English language.

The one type of journalism, more than any other, that nobody likes to be the subject of, or even materially connected to, is investigative journalism. This is the type of journalism that the public most needs because it's what informs them of gross misconduct by the people in whom society has placed its greatest degrees of trust. This is the type of news that Trump will call "fake" the instant he gets whiff that such a news story about him is about to break. The public, however, need to know that this type of journalism isn't produced to ruin its object and that it is produced to inform the public and let them decide whether they care about the malfeasance the journalist has uncovered. Care or don't care, but we deserve to know the full story. The only people, aside from law enforcement and they aren't exactly neutral seeing as their goal is to prosecute rather than merely "find out," in our society who have the means to uncover the information.

What strikes me as the biggest problems, however, are:

1. The masses these days have this notion that whatever and all information comes their way is opinion. It seems they cannot tell when a speaker/writer is sharing an opinion and when they are sharing facts and findings.
2. The masses these days appear unable to tell what information is credibly supported. If they don't like the information that comes their way, they declare and discount it as "just an opinion." That wouldn't be a problem except for the fact that opinions supported by the preponderance of evidence rightly must take precedence over less profoundly substantiated ones. Sadly, however, it seems that the opinion that gets the most "likes" is the one that prevails. That's a dangerous way to run a society.
3. The masses aren't well schooled in the processes and techniques of rigorous reasoning. The list of logical fallacies is long, but many folks seem familiar with even half of the fallacious approaches to argument, to say nothing of the other half. That rational naivete leave people vulnerable to all sorts of manipulation. Again, not a good thing.

Methinks you disdain the masses which is exactly why Trump won.

I don't disdain the masses. I do disdain the perfunctoriness with which they consider important matters of public policy and, perhaps more importantly, the utterance of public officials.

 

[Never3ndr]

Looks to me like you've exempted the media from the shortcomings of "the masses".

Judging from the slipshod and incomprehensibly biased nature of the reportage we've received from them, it would appear that, rather than being exempt, these shortcomings apply to them even more so.

Whereas the masses are simply ignorant, most of the media is malevolent in its efforts to manipulate public opinion. Among other things, the OP conveniently ignores the decisions of the MSM as to what stories they cover and what stories they intentionally ignore (a classic propaganda technique).

I don't actually think of the media as malicious in their intent. They are simply operators in the market we have set up for them. They NEED views / clicks in order to survive. If they do not get airtime or circulation, they are going to go out of business. The best way to do that is to cater to a (hopefully large) specific audience.

Spoiled Americans have shown that they are unwilling to hear things that they do not like...the easy point in case would be Trumpers' refusal to consume media sources from the left (CNN / NYT) even though they may offer a unique perspective not shown in their own media sources. (The reverse is also true where you rarely will find a liberal who regularly consumes Fox News). So, if you air things that people don't agree with, true or not, you are going to lose viewers / clicks. The only way to really get media to change their actions is to somehow change the environment in which they operate. The easiest answer, in my opinion, would be some sort of oversight body...although somebody may be able to create a way to take them out of the free market entirely...although I have no clue how that would work.

So, some clarification here. I still do not see how you are not advocating for state run media....

An oversight body could be a government agency. It also could be an independent agency (think of the better business bureau for businesses).

Given the danger that Trump clearly presents with his misinformation and attacks on truth, and that dictators such as Putin or Kim Jung Un are known to utilize media controlled by the state to send their message, I believe it is self-evident of the dangers that a government controlled agency would present. However, I am unwilling to totally discredit a government run agency, although not preferable, given the current environment that we live in. As it stands I would rather have a unified message being sent to Americans, which is not true...rather than messages sent to Americans which are still untrue, but divide the nation.

 

[usmbguest5318]

As it stands I would rather have a unified message being sent to Americans, which is not true...rather than messages sent to Americans which are still untrue, but divide the nation.

Wow! Those are two very, very, very bad alternatives between which I hope never to have to choose.

 

[danielpalos]

We have a Commerce Clause that covers, conflicts of interest. Journalists, should know that.