News is supposed to be about something that doesn't ordinarily happen in the world. Newspaper articles are supposed to include timeliness, proximity, prominence, consequence, conflict, suspense, human interest, novelty and progress. When a specific story fails to meet at least one of these nine news pegs, like for example; human interest, it is tempting for a journalist to tweak the story to draw more of the public into reading their article. In regards to reporters, they may interview someone of importance and once they are finished getting the footage may take it to be tweaked to make the story more interesting. When false information is published or broadcasted to the public it not only can ruin ones career but also effect the companies authority in reporting valid news.
If a journalist or a reporter were to present false news to the public it is an obligation for the company to print or report another article the following day clarifying or apologizing for printing false information. Often people lie to reporters, others are honest but give their answers on a bias terms which gets printed into articles. When this happens the public accuses reporters of distorting the truth. However, once this is done it is most likely that the public will think it is a cover up for the wrong that was done, a means of desperation to brush the problem 'under the carpet'. It could ruin their reputation as a reporter, or journalist which in turn could cost their jobs, and it will cost the company millions of dollars in libel law suits. Some of these false stories are not done intentionally.
Personally, I think that it does make the printing company look terrible when false information is printed, but after reading about journalism and public relations it is clear to me that once any false information is printed to the public the issue is automatically dealt with. Yes, we the public should be able to trust reporters and printing companies completely in terms of what they print for the public to read. In turn we should also trust and respect their industry enough to know that once a mistake is made that they will do what ever it takes to fix it. More importantly "budding" journalists should be aware that they need to make sure that they get their information from reliable sources. It is their job to report concrete news to the public, people should not be forced to question what you are writing.
If a journalist or a reporter were to present false news to the public it is an obligation for the company to print or report another article the following day clarifying or apologizing for printing false information. Often people lie to reporters, others are honest but give their answers on a bias terms which gets printed into articles. When this happens the public accuses reporters of distorting the truth. However, once this is done it is most likely that the public will think it is a cover up for the wrong that was done, a means of desperation to brush the problem 'under the carpet'. It could ruin their reputation as a reporter, or journalist which in turn could cost their jobs, and it will cost the company millions of dollars in libel law suits. Some of these false stories are not done intentionally.
Personally, I think that it does make the printing company look terrible when false information is printed, but after reading about journalism and public relations it is clear to me that once any false information is printed to the public the issue is automatically dealt with. Yes, we the public should be able to trust reporters and printing companies completely in terms of what they print for the public to read. In turn we should also trust and respect their industry enough to know that once a mistake is made that they will do what ever it takes to fix it. More importantly "budding" journalists should be aware that they need to make sure that they get their information from reliable sources. It is their job to report concrete news to the public, people should not be forced to question what you are writing.
1 comment:
You provide lots of useful info in this post about effective journalism. And that's a great image that ties in with fake news.
You present some interesting ideas, but I want to make sure I'm clear on what you mean when you say "false news." You wrote: "If a journalist or a reporter were to present false news to the public it is an obligation for the company to print or report another article the following day clarifying or apologizing for printing false information."
Are you considering fake news as misinformation? Do you mean that the journalists are presenting this false news on purpose or by accident? How do you see accidental misinformation as related to the kinds of fake news that we've talked about in class?(eg, articles planted by PR firms and corporations.)
Keep writing,
Lana
Post a Comment