Objective Perception | The fall of Media Trust

In today's rapidly changing world, the incompetency we see across various Media houses is growing at a high rate.

I for one will most likely advocate for things to be done properly and in a more trustworthy manner. I would like to experience a situation where I can believe everything released by the media, but I can't write off the fact that things are not happening the way they ought to be.

I'm losing trust in the media. It's sad to say, but I'm not the only one in this category. The likelihood of people doubting every news content released on television, magazines, blogs, emails, and co, is being fueled due to the incompetency of various journalistic materials.


Everyone now publishes what they want. It doesn't matter if it's THE TRUTH. They just choose their truth and turn a blind eye to any other truth out there.


The new face of Journalism in this rapidly growing world.

press-1015988_640.jpg

The fact that time is changing is already taking a toll on how people consume journalistic articles. Now more than ever, information has become accessible to everyone. You don't need to tune into BBC or CNN to know the latest trend.

The interconnectivity of this global world overlords us with varieties of reports on current events. It pops up on our screen from various websites. Somehow, they have also managed to be sending emails to their target audience.

While this wild availability of news content has a lot of positives, the incompetency and unprofessional conduct of some journalists and non-media persons is turning journalism to a ridiculous field. They make reports that are not supported with facts and they enjoy driving traffic to their content with pure disregard for the consequences attached to feeding people with such content. The ripple effect leads to complete distrust in journalistic contents.


For the record, the role of journalism from antiquity till this moment is to objectively keep people informed with FACTS.

No more, no less!

That is the only way for journalism to regain people's trust in this world of ours.

Thanks For Not Missing Any Full-stop Or Comma
Image Source



0
0
0.000
5 comments
avatar

I buy your idea, sincerely. Some people like lies than truth. It boils down to moral decadence. They don't see honesty And truthfulness as a virtue or value. Sometimes the captivating headlines that pop into my phone push me to use my data not knowing it's all lies and not relevant. Sometimes pictures Are used to attract readers. In all the right thing should be done but I doubt if any remedy could be done in the field of journalism.

0
0
0.000
avatar

The remedy may be given a shot, but the number of people involved with it at the moment kinda makes it ambiguous.

Who is who is journalism?

You'd know that at this moment, people no longer need a certificate to publish journalistic articles. Of course, this is painful to the heart and to the soul. But that's our world.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I'm already at a point where I don't believe news headlines especially that of Nigerian newspapers. There's too much lies in the guise of clickbait. I feel second hand embarrassment these days when I see tweets from Vanguard and Punch newspapers. They can lie ehn.

0
0
0.000
avatar

You are not alone in this.
The news agencies are becoming mediocre in their line of duty and they easily bend towards the desires of any organisation or political figure that is ready to grease their palms.

It's ridiculously

0
0
0.000
avatar

Objectivity - Utterly free of and existing independently from any possible subjective feelings, opinions and/or any prejudice; indisputable and seen identically by all possible observers; not subject to variation, change or interpretation.

Promotes - Lends support or actively encourages.

Demonization - Characterization of individuals or groups as irredeemably and purely evil, disingenuous, "fundamentally and incurably stupid and/or evil", or intellectually deaf and blind. A "black and white" "my way or the highway" point of view that casts all possible human participants as either "the good guys" or "the bad guys".

The rather bizarre Orwellian concept of "objectivity" has somehow managed to worm its way into our language. Practically everyone falsely believes (with unjustifiable confidence) that "objectivity" exists and is an unquestionable ideal-high-goal and more so that their own beliefs are "more objective" or "fair and balanced" than their detractors, and beyond that, all their detractors are either being disingenuous, "are fundamentally and incurably stupid and/or evil", or intellectually deaf and blind. Case closed. Let's all go back to our bubbles.

This premise about "objectivity" detailed above, allows people to pretend great atrocities are justified against "non believers" because "they deserve what they get". Side note: In order to properly justify such a hypothesis (like "they deserve what they get") would require significant and detailed philosophical exploration. In other words, if you believe in a black and white world and "philosophy" muddies the waters, then "philosophy" is a "problem" and must be wrong, ex post-facto. This is an example of "affirming the consequent" (a logical fallacy) which basically means you are "closed minded" and only seek serious exploration of ideas that you believe are likely to reinforce your own pre-conceived ideas, technically known as prejudices.

And before you think I'm trying to single out one particular group of people, "godless secular liberal progressives" are just as guilty of this type of thinking as the other more obvious religious and political targets.

The simple fact that people are able to very effectively dismiss and deflect all criticism by characterizing their detractors as "biased" proves how pervasive and insidious and anti-intellectual this ideal-high-goal of "objectivity" is. This specific technique is a combination of "false choice" and indirect "ad hominem" attack. In formal logic it is widely recognized as an illegitimate form of argument (logical fallacy). And yet, by all accounts "millions of people" think this qualifies as a plausible line of reasoning.

Now before you dismiss me as "a crack pot", I would like to point out that I do believe "a broad consensus" is a very good standard for "truth". And even Karl Popper admits, when pressed, that science isn't based on "objectivity" but rather on "a broad consensus" of "well qualified individuals", which in a lot of ways is nearly functionally identical, but with the key difference being that "a broad consensus" doesn't necessarily categorize detractors as either being disingenuous, "fundamentally and incurably stupid and/or evil", or intellectually deaf and blind. It at least leaves the door open to the idea that there may be some legitimate disagreement based on contrary evidence or other logical considerations without an automatic reflexive leap to pure demonization (terrorism is another good example of this).

Feel free to expand upon and/or challenge any of the arguments described above or add your own. I look forward to having a civil conversation regarding the topic at hand.

0
0
0.000