American election.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

A good answer. I think it gets us part of the way to something useful on that. But not quite all the way, yet.

Are journalists allowed to determine, say based on their love for a particular ideological or political viewpoint, that the public should not have any access to information they possess?

For example, should Josef Goebbels be allowed to put in the public eye all the positive achievements of Adolph Hitler, such as rebuilding the German military and industrial complex, ending reparations, returning nationalistic pride, building volkswagens, and so forth, while not reporting to the public Hitler's "night of the long knives," or his plans to purge Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the handicapped, or his intentions to plunge Germany into a war that would kill 8 millions of his own people, and so on?

I think you would rightly say, "That's too much opinion, and not enough journalistic integrity." And I'd agree. But what principle should guide the journalist, if it is not the principle of objectivity? For it will surely be the case that anybody who gives unrestricted range to his opinion will distort the news beyond recognition, reporting only that about which he has a positive opinion, and never anything about which he has a negative opinion?

Does he owe the public the truth, in other words?

And if journalists don't owe the public the truth, then how does the public get the truth?

I don't wish to accuse you of anything, but I think you should accept that words can be interpreted in many different ways

I know this. But people who point it out often forget that the range of possible "interpretation" is far from unlimited. Words do actually have meaning, and it's often only nuance that is opinionated.

For example, how do we interpret the claim, "Hunter Biden left his laptop at a repair shop"? That seems rather factual and objective, does it not? And, in fact, both sides of the "opinion" spectrum now concede that it was true; but whereas one journalistic "opinion set" decided not to tell anyone about that, the other did. And now, both are doing talking about it. So that shows that it was the first "journalists" who were withholding the truth, since they've now changed their story. The latter did not have to, because they told the objective truth about that in the first place.

[Immanuel Can]

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

So you don't expect them to do anything but lie to you? Just asking.

[Immanuel Can]

...would is irrelevant...

So you're just amoral about journalistic ethics? Just asking.

[commonsense]

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

So you don't expect them to do anything but lie to you? Just asking.

Just answering. I don’t expect them to do anything, including I don’t expect them to lie to anyone including me. I also do not expect them to not do anything, including not lying, to anyone, including me.

[commonsense]

...would is irrelevant...

So you're just amoral about journalistic ethics? Just asking.

See previous reply.

[Immanuel Can]

Just asking.

Just answering. I don’t expect them to do anything, including I don’t expect them to lie to anyone including me. I also do not expect them to not do anything, including not lying, to anyone, including me.

Oh. So there's no role for the fourth estate, then.

And how are the electorate supposed to inform themselves, so as to be able to vote intelligently and morally? Who is responsible to make sure they have all the facts in hand, so that they can make a correct decision?

[henry quirk]

I don’t expect them to do anything, including I don’t expect them to lie to anyone including me.

me: I expect them to hold to the ethic they espouse which is, as I say, the (unbiased) conduction of fact

understand: I have no problem with propagandists; I have a problem with propagandists who claim to be sumthin' else

[Immanuel Can]

understand: I have no problem with propagandists; I have a problem with propagandists who claim to be sumthin' else

But Henry, propagandists ALWAYS claim to be something else. They have to; if the didn't, nobody would believe them. Being honest about being a liar defeats the whole purpose of lying, and undermines the possibility of telling a convincing lie.

So we can just expect that the propagandists will be calling themselves 'journalists," or "fact checkers," or, as per Orwell, "The Ministry of Truth." They won't be saying, "Hello, folks: we're the department of BS, here to bury you neck deep in it."

[commonsense]

Just asking.

Just answering. I don’t expect them to do anything, including I don’t expect them to lie to anyone including me. I also do not expect them to not do anything, including not lying, to anyone, including me.

Oh. So there's no role for the fourth estate, then.

And how are the electorate supposed to inform themselves, so as to be able to vote intelligently and morally? Who is responsible to make sure they have all the facts in hand, so that they can make a correct decision?

Clearly there’s a part of your limbic brain that prevents you from making conclusions from other people’s statements.

From my statements you may deduce nothing concerning a role for the fourth estate.

You need to continue this discussion, posing as both of us.

[Immanuel Can]

From my statements you may deduce nothing concerning a role for the fourth estate.

I understood that, and did deduce it. But then you didn't answer my question. I wrote:

"And how are the electorate supposed to inform themselves, so as to be able to vote intelligently and morally? Who is responsible to make sure they have all the facts in hand, so that they can make a correct decision?"

[commonsense]

From my statements you may deduce nothing concerning a role for the fourth estate.

I understood that, and did deduce it. But then you didn't answer my question. I wrote:

"And how are the electorate supposed to inform themselves, so as to be able to vote intelligently and morally? Who is responsible to make sure they have all the facts in hand, so that they can make a correct decision?"

You deduced a non sequitor.

You can see from my previous response that I am expecting you to answer your questions from here on out.

[Immanuel Can]

I am expecting you to answer your questions from here on out.

Heh. Sorry to disappoint.

[henry quirk]

understand: I have no problem with propagandists; I have a problem with propagandists who claim to be sumthin' else

But Henry, propagandists ALWAYS claim to be something else. They have to; if they didn't, nobody would believe them. Being honest about being a liar defeats the whole purpose of lying, and undermines the possibility of telling a convincing lie.

So we can just expect that the propagandists will be calling themselves 'journalists," or "fact checkers," or, as per Orwell, "The Ministry of Truth." They won't be saying, "Hello, folks: we're the department of BS, here to bury you neck deep in it."

that's why I say, just up-thread, be the gatekeeper of your thinkin'

it's much easier to police yourself than all of them

sure, you can raise high holy hell, even take 'em to court (way easier, by the way, to prove the car dealer sold you a lemon than prove the news outlet sold you lies), but ultimately these folks are gonna do what they do and, especially when they're aligned with or backed by political or financial power, there's not a lot to be done about it

so: yeah, I expect them to play the game by the rules they claim, but I know they don't, so I act & respond accordingly

1-trust none of them
2-treat all they produce as, at best, opinion or, at worst, propaganda
3-access multiple sources, never rely on any one
4-pay attention for what they don't say as much as you pay attention to what they do say
5-ask yourself, why are they feedin' me this opinion or propaganda? what is it they want me to believe? what are they tryin' to distract me from? what is they want me to do, or not do?

it would be very nice if all reporters reported but most don't

as aside: linda ellerbee (who I'm no fan of) many years ago said, in television the product is not the program; the product is the audience and the consumer of that product is the advertiser. The advertiser does not 'buy' a news program. He buys an audience.

don't be the product

[Immanuel Can]

it would be very nice if all reporters reported but most don't

as aside: linda ellerbee (who I'm no fan of) many years ago said, in television the product is not the program; the product is the audience and the consumer of that product is the advertiser. The advertiser does not 'buy' a news program. He buys an audience.

don't be the product

Where's the "thumbs up" emoji?

[henry quirk]

it would be very nice if all reporters reported but most don't

as aside: linda ellerbee (who I'm no fan of) many years ago said, in television the product is not the program; the product is the audience and the consumer of that product is the advertiser. The advertiser does not 'buy' a news program. He buys an audience.

don't be the product

Where's the "thumbs up" emoji?

do this: : thumbsup : but leave no spaces between the colons and the t & p