Daily Cascade

Are Today's Journalists Fair?

Prompt: Journalism
"Journalists claim to be hearing 'both sides' as though a binary opposition had been set down by some disinterested god. But it is the journalists themselves who are playing god--it is the journalists who decide which sides are legitimate and which are not."
Ta Nehisi Coates, The Message
What do you think about the validity of the journalism today? Are today's journalists doing their work well enough?

-------------------

Unfortunately for companies, events, and even private citizens, the destructive or constructive role today's journalists play is at best iffy, especially at this time in our civilization.

Case in point, my son showed me an article he picked up from the web, written by a quite well-known journalist. The article was about an old and serious company that isn't going under but somewhat struggling.

Now, in this article, the use of language and the presentation were excellent, but this journalist manipulated his information so deftly that many customers may stop buying from the stores of this company. I'm quite sure of that.

Did this journalist have the right to do this to a business? I don't think so. His article wasn't a few paragraphs of offhand writing, but it was long and full of the images of ratios, charts, the company's financial stuff, and other things that could make a reader or even an investor believe him.

The problem I have with the journalist and this article is, it wasn't written for a investment journal but for some popular online publication. Regardless of the fame of that publication, such an article should not be for the eyes of the public, especially when the company is doing its utmost to pick up the pieces.

Worse yet, being so adept with language, this journalist put up the facts first, as if in favor of the company, then kept asking questions like, "Yet, is this really true..."

I'll now dare to quote exactly from some of his sentences by naming the company XYZ but without naming the journalist:
"...the real reason XYZ and (its sector...) is dying is because of a failure to enforce antitrust laws against unfair business methods and illegal mergers..."
"XYZ eventually came back with its tail between its legs an signed a deal with ..."
"You'd think XYZ would be doing fine. But it is not."
"The trends for XYZ aren't good. It has closed stores since 2018, and plans to shut more this year. And if you look at the gross operating income of the US retail segment, XYZ is collapsing."

I am not opposing his facts or his charts or what not, but this article by this journalist may cause XYZ not recover at all and to go under faster, since the article is published in a public forum.

You may ask, "What's wrong with informing the public or with independent journalism?" I'd say, nothing is wrong for allowing diverse perspectives, but I am concerned about the spread of unverified and biased information. General public doesn't take the time to fact-check or verify the credibility of an article's sources.

Then, some media leans toward sensationalism that generates clicks and produces income from ads, over fair and objective reporting. Others in the media may select articles according to a journalist's reputation or his particular political or ideological stance. Still others may be hired by the rivals of a company to badmouth a company like XYZ. And even if a company like XYZ is really struggling, does anyone have a right to beat it up in the worst way possible and make its comeback impossible?

Luckily enough, many journalists today, at least try to stick to ethical reporting. I'd say, investigative reporters especially have to be very careful with how much information they can make public.

Still, although journalism is being challenged greatly today, it is the cornerstone of any free society. Therefore, reputable journalists have to be alert for misinformation, media bias, the rush for speed, and sensationalism over accuracy. This is because their work is essential for transparency, accountability, and our civilization.