So you call yourself a journalist?

[Debra]

What defines journalism these days has been largely lost. What defines good, responsible journalism. Is it Truth? Accuracy? Impartiality? Accountability?

What are the skills required of a journalist? Who does it really well?

Types of journalism fascinate me. I found a really good thread here on Project Avalon from 2014 that reviewed a book about 'bought' journalism and it prompted me to question more about how anybody can really call themselves a journalist when they are working in league with a publisher or media outlet or any other agency that they are putting together a story for.

And that includes anyone from a lone wolf freelancer to a staff journalist. I mean, who covers a story, hunts down the facts, seeks all sides to a story and opinion and puts them together in a fair and impartial manner?

I once worked as a mainstream journalist and to be honest about mainstream media (which I assume that most people here would already know about) I just started a story but who published it, always shaped it in other ways too. Always.

Was I a bought journalist, well yes but not in the cognisant way that I was there to pursue a political agenda. Was I a puppet journalist? Not entirely. They would always encourage me to root out the facts and dig around. I was expected also to seek points of view and opinion from multiple sources and I was hauled over the coals by legal once as a cadet journalist for not reporting accurately. Cost them money. So investigation and accountability were largely still requirements.

But when you move to cover a story and you are actually working for that story. That is, you are working in-house - I have been one of those too - well the lines do get awfully blurry. What happens to truth? So yes, I am questioning here where journalism stops and something else begins.

[WhiteLove]

Where/when relative integrity morphs into the writing, journalism begins to die. Journalism to me is all about absolute integrity, a process of writing about something - fairly, in truth, from heart.

[Debra]

Posted by WhiteLove (here)
Where/when relative integrity morphs into the writing, journalism begins to die. Journalism to me is all about absolute integrity, a process of writing about something - fairly, in truth, from heart.

Thanks WhiteLove 😊 Could you please expand a little more on what you mean by the term 'relative integrity' morphing into writing? That's an intriguing term but I am not sure what it means. Could you give an example?

Also who out there in the world of journalism does have integrity? Who fails in the role?

[mgray]

As a working journalist for 30 years the axiom I follow is: "Get it first, but first get it right."

Today I find little balance in stories dealing with politics. The agenda is right there in the lede of the story. I'm speaking of NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times. Once reputable papers.

It is not enough to write 20 inches on the latest Trump/Russia story (which will be forgotten when the next "story" comes out) and in the last paragraph say "the White House had no comment" and construe that as balanced reporting.

TV journalists (especially on cable news networks) do not practice journalism. They are biased talk show hosts, who bring on commentators who will echo the biases of the network whether it is favoring the left or the right.

The minute you know the angle on a story before even writing it you can call yourself a hack, but not a journalist.

[WhiteLove]

Posted by Debra (here)

Posted by WhiteLove (here)
Where/when relative integrity morphs into the writing, journalism begins to die. Journalism to me is all about absolute integrity, a process of writing about something - fairly, in truth, from heart.

Thanks WhiteLove 😊 Could you please expand a little more on what you mean by the term 'relative integrity' morphing into writing? That's an intriguing term but I am not sure what it means. Could you give an example?

Also who out there in the world of journalism does have integrity? Who fails in the role?

A journalist that during writing evaluates his/her integrity relative to/how well it fits the subjectivity of the context is unable to contribute real value because all ingredients (to the story) with a higher absolute truth level are automatically demoted down to the same level of absolute truth as what is already in the context.

An example of an author/journalist that I find writes with high absolute integrity is Joseph P. Farrell.

The issue with a lot of journalists that do not act with absolute integrity in their writing is that the real value of the information stops correlating with the amount of the information published, hence it becomes more and more difficult to extract absolute truths from information. When this applies to a whole society and energy is spent accordingly, it makes the society more and more "dense", more polarized, more competitive and more political. This in turn makes society vulnerable to concentrated power and manipulation - access to absolute truth becomes a power tool used for great influence by the very few, laws are formed out of that influence and the society becomes suppressed in limitation that causes suffering to humans. Investments made in this context become ineffective and non-economic. It divides people and is counter productive for creating world peace and other real values for spiritual development. It becomes what it is like today.

When old collective subjectivity created out of relative integrity is fed with more relative integrity and over time gets passed down through generations, it becomes increasingly polarized. The awakening process as I see it is to collectively break free down a path towards absolute truth, also journalism based on absolute integrity can assist in that process. World peace is a highly important milestone for humans at this time. Great journalism uncovers the real reasons behind war/violance, who are behind them and why, so that solutions can be formed. This contributes to an acceleration towards peace. Great journalism is hence a peace making tool.

[EFO]

So you call yourself a journalist?

Sensationist
Fakeist
Internetist
Newsist

[Shadowself]

Seeing Teresa Yaneros hold up that sign and calling herself a journalist is laughable! Sorry it just is!

Let's take a random video she just put out that does not include Corey Goode.

So this Corey's kid puts out a video on Tarot and says in the video and reiterates several times that Rider-Waite is the original tarot that gypsies based their tarot after.

Well I just had to laugh. In the video she says several times "look at the pretty cards!"

She who has no idea where tarot originated from in the first place is recommending tarot decks! I was lmao!

This is journalism? This is the new found Corey Kid journalist that is so journalistic? OMG!

Just so ya know...Rider-Waite is NOT what the gypsies based their tarot after.

A little history on Tarot for those who actually want some real news and not some Corey's Kids version of it! My tarot deck I ordered directly from the factory that produces the Tarot of Marseille long before Rider-Waite was ever in existence!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarot_of_Marseilles


Rider-Waite is from 1910 and NOT the basis for Tarot! For crying out loud! It is a copy of the older versions.


But hay! Corey put his stamp of approval on this Corey's kid as a top notch journalist!

I think Joe of the Carolina's is far better and more informed on what he decides to speak to than this Kid of Corey's ever thought of. Perhaps she needs to go back to school and finish that Journalism major she claims to possess?

Hiiii There! (shrill shriek and all)

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=SUqOGKkFAkg

[Wind]

Journalism has a bad rep these days and for a good reason I might add. News aren't only news these days or the objective truth, they're the exact opposite of the truth most of the times. Spin doctors spin the news to suit their masters political agendas, what ever they may be. That is not objective reporting at all, it's propaganda. Investigative reporting is much more interesting, because it tends to be more critical, but it seems like that kind of journalism isn't as popular. A true journalist like a true scientist should never be influenced by political agendas because that will affect the reporting and as a result the integrity of their work will suffer. Garbage in, garbage out.

I think the girl mentioned in this thread should be forgiven for her naivety, which seems to be the issue and not only with just her, that includes many other people in the alternative and and new age scene. Some people are just very gullible and confused about things. Hopefully in the not too distant future they will realize the error of their ways, be embarassed about it and then be more critical in the future. If not, then they will just keep on believing the lies and fantasies meanwhile continuing to spread them to other people as "news". That will make them more responsible for the consequences of their actions.

[Noelle]

I have worked as a journalist for more than 15 years. Let me tell you, I have had enough of working for publishers that place profit and political agendas above integrity.

I have been assigned stories simply because a specific subject is "trending," "newsy" stories that spotlight products/services of advertisers, and stories that subtly and not so subtly attack political candidates and for- and non-profit organizations.

I have worked with editors who have, save for correcting typos, published my work with no changes. But then I have worked with editors who have sliced and diced my work so that it conforms to their views. In most cases, I did not know about these substantial changes until after publication.

As a copy editor, I have worked with writers who plagiarize and writers who get their background information from Wikipedia.

[Bayareamom]

Sharyl Attkisson's lectures/videos about journalism are a must see for those of whom are not aware re how 'bought' journalism is in today's time. Here's one of her videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzSNx4dXhk4

[Rawhide68]

Posted by mgray (here)
TV journalists (especially on cable news networks) do not practice journalism. They are biased talk show hosts, who bring on commentators who will echo the biases of the network whether it is favoring the left or the right.

True journalism is dying out unfortunately.

I think this little film says it all especially if you watch from 8.25 True journalist´s Steve Wilson and Jane Akre being cencored by FOX Television.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=1gqYcQTpq_c

[Mike Gorman]

Since the days of 'Town Criers' who delivered the proclamations of the monarch, and broadcast the news of the kingdom to 'the people' we have been recipients of propaganda.
The Press, taking its name from the mechanism which launched the modern era, has been licensed and regulated ever since - and those people who are favored by the ruling powers of the day present the spin
which supports their interests.
The emergence of the internet, not as so many seem to think a benign development given to us by the 'authorities' but a black project which took on a life of its own has completely disrupted the 'Mass Media' hegemony of the 20th Century.

Prior to Brexit, and the victory of Trump - which were both powerfully opposed by the mainstream media (and therefore the establishment), the Media firmly believed they still held sway over the mass public opinion stakes - it was a major shock for many in the corridors of covert power, oddly enough.
I think Media is the first real disrupted industry - displaced by the 20 years of digital media, by the independent media groups. We are now entering vastly different territory. This is why there is strong talk of 'Internet Regulation'!

[Tintin]

Posted by Debra (here)
What defines journalism these days has been largely lost. What defines good, responsible journalism. Is it Truth? Accuracy? Impartiality? Accountability?

What are the skills required of a journalist? Who does it really well?

Types of journalism fascinate me. I found a really good thread here on Project Avalon from 2014 that reviewed a book about 'bought' journalism and it prompted me to question more about how anybody can really call themselves a journalist when they are working in league with a publisher or media outlet or any other agency that they are putting together a story for.

And that includes anyone from a lone wolf freelancer to a staff journalist. I mean, who covers a story, hunts down the facts, seeks all sides to a story and opinion and puts them together in a fair and impartial manner?

I once worked as a mainstream journalist and to be honest about mainstream media (which I assume that most people here would already know about) I just started a story but who published it, always shaped it in other ways too. Always.

Was I a bought journalist, well yes but not in the cognisant way that I was there to pursue a political agenda. Was I a puppet journalist? Not entirely. They would always encourage me to root out the facts and dig around. I was expected also to seek points of view and opinion from multiple sources and I was hauled over the coals by legal once as a cadet journalist for not reporting accurately. Cost them money. So investigation and accountability were largely still requirements.

But when you move to cover a story and you are actually working for that story. That is, you are working in-house - I have been one of those too - well the lines do get awfully blurry. What happens to truth? So yes, I am questioning here where journalism stops and something else begins.

Attachment 35783

Interesting article - thanks Debra.

I don't think any conversation around journalism is quite complete without mentioning the mighty Jon Rappoport - there is someone who knows a thing or plenty about what it is and how to go about practising the art of it. Oh, and a salutary warning about papers such as the Washington Post and how they front-up, now, for the CIA Here's an interview you might find interesting from 2014:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=XBZzu7q67AQ

[Debra]

Posted by mgray (here)
As a working journalist for 30 years the axiom I follow is: "Get it first, but first get it right."


The minute you know the angle on a story before even writing it you can call yourself a hack, but not a journalist.

Your points are spot on mgray.

Getting it right has become so lost, getting it right does not seem to be of much importance anymore. There's actually a laziness, especially with the internet because they know they can quickly edit errors and republish. Though not so easy with TV news stories.

And yes, once the angle is decided - it's a hack job. Investigation closed.

[Debra]

Posted by Shadowself (here)
Seeing Teresa Yaneros hold up that sign and calling herself a journalist is laughable! Sorry it just is!

Let's take a random video she just put out that does not include Corey Goode.

So this Corey's kid puts out a video on Tarot and says in the video and reiterates several times that Rider-Waite is the original tarot that gypsies based their tarot after.

Well I just had to laugh. In the video she says several times "look at the pretty cards!"

She who has no idea where tarot originated from in the first place is recommending tarot decks! I was lmao!

This is journalism? This is the new found Corey Kid journalist that is so journalistic? OMG!

Just so ya know...Rider-Waite is NOT what the gypsies based their tarot after.

A little history on Tarot for those who actually want some real news and not some Corey's Kids version of it! My tarot deck I ordered directly from the factory that produces the Tarot of Marseille long before Rider-Waite was ever in existence!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarot_of_Marseilles


Rider-Waite is from 1910 and NOT the basis for Tarot! For crying out loud! It is a copy of the older versions.


But hay! Corey put his stamp of approval on this Corey's kid as a top notch journalist!

I think Joe of the Carolina's is far better and more informed on what he decides to speak to than this Kid of Corey's ever thought of. Perhaps she needs to go back to school and finish that Journalism major she claims to possess?

Hiiii There! (shrill shriek and all)

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=SUqOGKkFAkg

I know Shadowself (*one ginormous facepalm*) this is probably in the category of joke journalism. It's clearly not journalism and the joke is on people who are gullible to take this in but the joke is sadly on her. I think she really believes what she is part of. She's like the designated PR girl for the cult. That or she is incredibly well paid because I don't know what else would possess her to front up and seriously present this as a serous story (*double facepalm*).

Don't get me started

[Debra]

Posted by GalaxyHorse (here)

I think Media is the first real disrupted industry - displaced by the 20 years of digital media, by the independent media groups. We are now entering vastly different territory. This is why there is strong talk of 'Internet Regulation'!

Indeed GalaxyHorse, the disruption is huge. Conversely, this impact in the communications field has been somewhat of a blessing as it has enabled some very interesting voices and movements to rise but there is that other end of the spectrum, which has in more ways exacerbated human uncertainty and confusion. It has also become the carrier of the breakdown of education, religion and cultures. Unfortunately, any journalist who is worthy of being called a journalist has one of hell of a job to be noticed in this madness. Interesting times.

[Debra]

Posted by Rawhide68 (here)

Posted by mgray (here)
TV journalists (especially on cable news networks) do not practice journalism. They are biased talk show hosts, who bring on commentators who will echo the biases of the network whether it is favoring the left or the right.

True journalism is dying out unfortunately.

I think this little film says it all especially if you watch from 8.25 True journalist´s Steve Wilson and Jane Akre being cencored by FOX Television.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=1gqYcQTpq_c

Thank you Rawhide68, I have never seen this documentary. Really good ... deserves to be BUMPED

[Debra]

Posted by LadyM (here)
As a copy editor, I have worked with writers who plagiarize and writers who get their background information from Wikipedia.

Wikipedia as a background source ? That's the last straw. I once tried to correct information and add to a page on Wikipedia about my close relative who was a public figure - some institution had obviously created the page yet my information was rejected. I couldn't believe it, I declared who I was but they - whoever they are - have the last word on my relative. Go figure !

[Debra]

Posted by Tintin Quarantino (here)

Interesting article - thanks Debra.

I don't think any conversation around journalism is quite complete without mentioning the mighty Jon Rappoport - there is someone who knows a thing or plenty about what it is and how to go about practising the art of it.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=XBZzu7q67AQ

I'm warchong this now
Thank you Tintin Quarantino!

[Debra]

Posted by WhiteLove (here)

An example of an author/journalist that I find writes with high absolute integrity is Joseph P. Farrell.

Absolutely agree with you WhiteLove.

Posted by WhiteLove (here)
The issue with a lot of journalists that do not act with absolute integrity in their writing is that the real value of the information stops correlating with the amount of the information published, hence it becomes more and more difficult to extract absolute truths from information. When this applies to a whole society and energy is spent accordingly, it makes the society more and more "dense", more polarized, more competitive and more political. This in turn makes society vulnerable to concentrated power and manipulation - access to absolute truth becomes a power tool used for great influence by the very few, laws are formed out of that influence and the society becomes suppressed in limitation that causes suffering to humans. Investments made in this context become ineffective and non-economic. It divides people and is counter productive for creating world peace and other real values for spiritual development. It becomes what it is like today.

Thank you .. I think I see now more through your eyes Is the response to make knowledge relative and fit into a box instead of holding it open for further enquiry be where absolute integrity dies? Hmmm .. I do like how you see how this condition bleeds down into larger society to perpetuate cycles of pain and division. It's where journalism stops and hacking begins and co-opted as a weapon to keep the masses in a hot mess.