When I still visited highschool I enjoyed writing a "pop column" in a local newspaper. Stories about local musicians, new records, the art scene in my hometown and so on. It evolved into writing about local politics, where I got my first encounters with the 'politics' behind news-gathering. A lot had to be covered-up, then already, and be kept out of sight of unsuspecting readers. It wasn't up to me but my editor-in-chief to decide if, when and how we would present controversial, political issues. My interest had cases with social rammifications. Insider deals and corruption, damaging the interests of citizens. There still were few then. Has anything changed since then?
| Times have changed indeed. The Internet has changed the world of journalism and the rules that apply to it. Today readers could verify news reports with a click of their mouse. Semblance and reality are just a webpage apart, should they take interest finding it. What appears plausible at first may in reality expose itself as propaganda, fiction or as a fantasy. Science in politics is a suspect topic, always requiring examination, like the UN climate hoax and associated issues demonstrate. Corporatism and its influence on media has made things worse. News no longer needs to be factual news, or news at all. What we read, hear and see may be and often is colored, subjective, partially true. That apart from the news-selection. We may not read everything. Who decides what we may read and why? Should we read 'everything'..? News also has become part of a state religion in which texts are formulated in a way that is 'politically correct', not a priori factually correct. Where state and corporative interests meet, messages may get severely distorted, as well as a arguments and decisions. The 'war on terror' is an example. Nobody asks what goal it serves and who profits, or what it obscures. Whose bread one eats, whose words one speaks, it appears. Who eats from whom? It is like spreading the gospel - however a gospel that less and less people seek to accept! It's no longer 'easy' to mislead all people by putting out dogmatic slogans, or pretending a consensus. | What is the relation between editorial news selection and freedom of expression or freedom of the press? If we are -in a way- prevented from reading anything, how then could we know if the news we read on a subject is 'all there is' to it? Or alternatively raise the question of censorship on relevant, but withheld or not mentionned facts in certain instances. There is a difference between unknown unknowns and known unknowns, like the former US minister of defense Donald Rumsfeld in 2002 so eloquently claimed. The numerous 'conspiracy theories' floating around the Internet prove that obfuscating the truth still is for some an established policy. It always was, in particular for those who benefit from it. It is a method to invoke confusion and disinterest. To claim that 'conspiracy stories' are bad reporting is another thing! The Reddit blacklisting (see video) of websites is in that respect cynical and can't be justified other than by arrogance and bigotry, in a silly attempt to be political correct. It is censorship, as is the idea behind 'political correctness'. Reddit lost some of their clientele doing this. Now the western society is so obviously collapsing, those who benefit most from obfuscating facts have started fighting journalists, bloggers and the Internet. Their attempts miss any substance. The Internet has changed news gathering. The educated crowd has become a threat for yesterday's elite... |
RSS Feed