American election.

[Immanuel Can]

...go back to what credible journalism means to you.

Ah...misrepresentation and reversal. Nice move.

I asked what appropriate journalistic ethics would be to you, and also to tillingborn.

[commonsense]

If there’s an assumed answer, it’s telling.

Yes...it's "telling" of what an honest answer would be.

Finally! It’s telling, not actually asking. Thank you.

Now as for honest answer, it doesn’t have to be. It is the answer the speaker wants to elicit. This may be true or it may only be what the speaker believes is true.

[Immanuel Can]

Now as for honest answer...

Honest? No, just evasive. What's your view of journalistic integrity? That's the question.

[commonsense]

...go back to what credible journalism means to you.

Ah...misrepresentation and reversal. Nice move.

I asked what appropriate journalistic ethics would be to you, and also to tillingborn.

Both tee and I say that what WOULD be is not relevant to what IS. If you want to discuss something actually written, then you are talking about writers who actually exist. If you are talking about existent writers, you are talking about existent morals. This has been related to you earlier by tee.

[commonsense]

If there’s an assumed answer, it’s telling.

Yes...it's "telling" of what an honest answer would be.

Finally! It’s telling, not actually asking. Thank you.

Now as for honest answer, it doesn’t have to be. It is the answer the speaker wants to elicit. This may be true or it may only be what the speaker believes is true.

Did you mean to indicate that it’s telling of what an evasive answer would be?

[commonsense]

Now as for honest answer...

Honest? No, just evasive. What's your view of journalistic integrity? That's the question.

Briefly, who are journalists and what is integrity?

[commonsense]

I’m not sure that I can say what anything would be to me or in relation to anything at all. How can I know whether a journalist is writing honestly or not?

[Immanuel Can]

Both tee and I say that what WOULD be is not relevant to what IS.

Dodge.

I asked you what should be, not what is.

I know very well what is. I want to know what standards YOU would assert as right for journalists.

[Immanuel Can]

Briefly, who are journalists and what is integrity?

I don't, for a minute, imagine these are sincere questions rather than evasions, but I'll answer.

Journalists: people who report news. Integrity: the right and moral way for them to behave as journalists.

[tillingborn]

I asked you what are the objectives of a good journalist, one who practices his profession with journalistic integrity.

So please answer.

I suppose I believe that journalists are entitled to an opinion, and that they should be free to let that influence their work, provided they don't deliberately mislead their readers.

I did not assert or assume or "give the impression" of anything. Notice the word "then" above. It's an "if-then," not a "therefore." In other words, I'm asking, "IF there has been misleading of the public, then what does that do to the concept 'the will of the people'?"

That is strikingly similar to what I alluded to: Less scrupulous journalists will exploit such power of suggestion knowing full well that their target audience will ignore the fact that no one has cited the actual research, if such research even exists, but conveniently, should they face accusations of bias, they can point to the bit where they said "If that's true." I don't wish to accuse you of anything, but I think you should accept that words can be interpreted in many different ways and that journalists, advertisers, lawyers, priests, politicians and anyone with an interest will exploit sophistry and rhetoric, you and I included. Unless of course you wish us to believe that everything you say is artlessly naïve.

[commonsense]

Briefly, who are journalists and what is integrity?

I don't, for a minute, imagine these are sincere questions rather than evasions, but I'll answer.

Journalists: people who report news. Integrity: the right and moral way for them to behave as journalists.

Thanks. I just wanted to be sure we’re talking about the same things. We are.

[commonsense]

Both tee and I say that what WOULD be is not relevant to what IS.

Dodge.

I asked you what should be, not what is.

I know very well what is. I want to know what standards YOU would assert as right for journalists.

I don’t have any standards for journalists. Sorry, I really don’t.

[commonsense]

Both tee and I say that what WOULD be is not relevant to what IS.

Dodge.

I asked you what should be, not what is.

I know very well what is. I want to know what standards YOU would assert as right for journalists.

Not a dodge. I’ve been trying for quite awhile to point out that would is irrelevant and that we can continue with is.

[henry quirk]

it's been nearly twenty years since I wrote for the papers, so I may be past my expiration date on an opinion, but, what the hell...

a reporter is a fella who reports...that is: he conducts facts

"Newspaper reporters and technical writers are trained to reveal almost nothing about themselves in their writing. This makes them freaks in the world of writers, since almost all of the other ink-stained wretches in that world reveal a lot about themselves." Kurt Vonnegut Jr.

the reporter, by his own professed ethic, is to tell his audience who, what, where, when, and how

why, at least in the initial reporting, should never come up

this...joe killed his wife, jane, in their home at midnight by bludgeoning her with a hammer...is reporting

why joe did such a thing has no place in the reporting...joe himself, may not know why he killed jane, so a reporter, at least in the initial reporting, has no place to speculate

today, what passes for reporting, is all about speculation...who, what, where, when, and how are merely the starting point for the journalist to expound on racial/economic/social injustice (or whatever his bent is)...joe & jane's story becomes exactly that, a story, a vehicle for the journalist by which he can move the audience to think or -- more importantly -- feel

this, of course, is not a new thing...even a casual review of reporting & journalism reveals newspapers & television have never been neutral territories...activists in this sphere, are not a recent development

so: what is to be done about it all?

nuthin'

those particular ink-stained wretches will not reform their industry...they don't want to...that leaves you, as I say elsewhere, to caretake your own head...be a zealous gatekeeper of your own thinking

[commonsense]

Thanks profusely, podner.