Should the news be accurate?

[MorkandMindy]

Most of the people I know are hooked on the news because it boosts their egos, all this stuff about 'young people today',

or because it gives a false impression of being somehow in the midst of everything that's going on and having a 'finger on the pulse' of the nation.


Should the news also be accurate?

The news has to support the viewer base of the station so it has to give that sense of satisfaction by combining both of the above.

It has to stoke people's egos by saying 'you were right all along'.


There is one thing the news doesn't seem to have to be, and that is accurate.


But in a nation that is in some way democratic, and pretty well all nations are, does the media have a moral duty to correctly inform the public?

 

[Paradoxum]

Of course the news should be accurate. I really want to see a news that isn't accurate. If I want my ego stroked I'll watch some random liberal 'news' that gives its opinion on the subject.

 

[MorkandMindy]

Choose the country you are in.

If it is England then news that is anti EU is forbidden.

If it is the US then the news is anti whoever the US wants to attack.

 

[GryffinSong]

New should be as accurate as current information can make it.

There is a natural bias that most people have, and it can be difficult to keep it out of any human endeavor, even the news. That's why conservatives might prefer FOX news, or Time magazine, while a liberal might prefer Newsweek or some other publication. BUT, there should be every effort made to eliminate bias and depict the bare, factual truth. Given the facts, let the audience make up their own minds.

 

[grasping the after wind]

New should be as accurate as current information can make it.

There is a natural bias that most people have, and it can be difficult to keep it out of any human endeavor, even the news. That's why conservatives might prefer FOX news, or Time magazine, while a liberal might prefer Newsweek or some other publication. BUT, there should be every effort made to eliminate bias and depict the bare, factual truth. Given the facts, let the audience make up their own minds.

Unfortunately there seems to be less and less effort on the part of all news organizations to combat the bias of their reporting and most news organizations seem to believe they need to make sure that their customers understand the correct meaning behind every fact or they might not understand the "truth" that the news organization knows to be the correct one. Phrases such as "so-called" should be banned from any news item and confined strictly to editorials but I find that phrase and similar inherently subjective connotative phrases everywhere. Can anyone honestly say that a sentence containing the words "so called", not in a quote from someone else but as stated by a reporter, could ever be even handed and objective? If so please provide me with the sentence that accomplishes this impossibility. The bias is so pervasive that most people have never experienced an actual objective news story and wouldn't know what to think if one actually cropped up somewhere. They would probably be very skeptical of it perhaps thinking that it was some sort of trick.

 

[ryeaber]

News should be accurate, but unfortunately in this day and age, where ratings and advertising is king, it's not going to happen.

 

[MorkandMindy]

The people who pay for the news determine what is in it.


Do you believe profit should drive companies?

Why would it be different for news companies?

 

[ryeaber]

The people who pay for the news determine what is in it.


Do you believe profit should drive companies?

Why would it be different for news companies?

Because news corporations and journalists have codified the ethical standards that they’re supposed to follow, and should put those standards above their desire for profit.

Journalism ethics and standards - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Paradoxum]

Choose the country you are in.

If it is England then news that is anti EU is forbidden.

If it is the US then the news is anti whoever the US wants to attack.

I never hear anything much pro-eu.

 

[MorkandMindy]

Several problems

1. Omissions - I was in the United States during most of the Vietnam War, in all that time the oil was never mentioned.

2. Quotes - although the media should not make up lies it will broadcast the President or spokesman giving a speech / statement even though that it may be grossly inaccurate and it will not correct the errors.


If the US media is accurate why did a large majority of Americans support attacking and invading Iraq when the populations of no other countries did?

Why was it a prevalent belief among servicemen in Iraq that Iraq was behind 911 when there was no connection?

Where did all those weapons of mass destruction go? The unpiloted planes that could reach the East Coast of the US? The nuclear weapons program?

 

[ryeaber]

Several problems
If the US media is accurate why did a large majority of Americans support attacking and invading Iraq when the populations of no other countries did?

Why was it a prevalent belief among servicemen in Iraq that Iraq was behind 911 when there was no connection?

Where did all those weapons of mass destruction go? The unpiloted planes that could reach the East Coast of the US? The nuclear weapons program?

Because the US media isn't/hasn't been accruate. Especially right after 9/11.

 

[chris4243]

It's easy to say the news should be accurate. But what the people want is sensationalistic news that conforms to their biases. If people want the mainstream news to be accurate, there would have to be some way for them to be too ashamed to wallow in bias and sensationalism and favor accurate news instead.

Maybe if some news companies started a policy requiring them to spend a portion of their income, proportional to the amount of mistakes found, on finding their own mistakes and biases? Or, it could be put as a reward for their readership to find mistakes.

 

[MissElizabeth]

i believe the news should be 100% accurate. if there is the occasion that there are 2 sides to the story, then both side should be told. but i really hate the bias that the media throws at the news reports and all that stuff............ give me the TRUTH!!!!!!!!

 

[Skavau]

Sorry, I'm not sure if this is that hard a question to answer.

Is anyone here going to seriously argue that no, news shouldn't be accurate?

 

[Blayz]

Most of the people I know are hooked on the news because it boosts their egos, all this stuff about 'young people today',

or because it gives a false impression of being somehow in the midst of everything that's going on and having a 'finger on the pulse' of the nation.

Firstly, "the people you know" sound weird. I know plenty of people and not one of them listens to news for any of the reasons you describe.

Secondly, they and you should think about news that moves beyond your nation's borders. Try getting your finger on the pulse of the planet for a change.

But in a nation that is in some way democratic, and pretty well all nations are, does the media have a moral duty to correctly inform the public?

Yeah, you definitely need to get out more.

 

[MissElizabeth]

Sorry, I'm not sure if this is that hard a question to answer.

Is anyone here going to seriously argue that no, news shouldn't be accurate?

LOL yeah, true!

 

[Phileas]

If it is England then news that is anti EU is forbidden.

Your kidding? The Telegraph, The Daily Mail, The Sun, and The Daily Express are all anti-EU, sometimes to the point of pathological hatred.

Yes, the reporting of news should be as accurate as possible. Unfortunately many news outlets follow the main rules of advertisers. 1. Facts don't sell, 2. Pander to preconceived bias.

 

[Phileas]

i believe the news should be 100% accurate. if there is the occasion that there are 2 sides to the story, then both side should be told. but i really hate the bias that the media throws at the news reports and all that stuff............ give me the TRUTH!!!!!!!!

I disagree slightly; being accurate in news does not necessarily mean telling all sides of a story with equal weighting. It's like in an experiment; if you take 10 repeat measurements and 9 of them are in a limited range yet 1 is a wildly different outlier then the accurate conclusion to report is that the 9 measurements are the most likely reflection of reality and not give equal weighting to 1 outlier.

 

[Davidjayjordan]

Most of the people I know are hooked on the news because it boosts their egos, all this stuff about 'young people today',

or because it gives a false impression of being somehow in the midst of everything that's going on and having a 'finger on the pulse' of the nation.


Should the news also be accurate?

The news has to support the viewer base of the station so it has to give that sense of satisfaction by combining both of the above.

It has to stoke people's egos by saying 'you were right all along'.


There is one thing the news doesn't seem to have to be, and that is accurate.


But in a nation that is in some way democratic, and pretty well all nations are, does the media have a moral duty to correctly inform the public?

Mass media is meant to pacify people into following their governments blindly to war and more war. They are not allowed to show the pics of their own soldiers but do always say they are winning the war and wars and more wars are needed. That is their job, they are controled and run by a few or lets say the Illuminati.

All news agaencies say the exact same thing so people believe the same thing. The only alternative is alternative news sources and then you can piece together the reAL NEWS.. and prophetic news.

But we are nmot allowed to talk about prophecy HERE just current events, and ethics and morals, and maybe not even current events as that has a forum as well.

But YES, news is suppose to be accurate but the have no morals and are totally unethical as they are forced to say what they are told to say.

 

[MorkandMindy]

News should be as accurate as current information can make it.

I doubt if there is any news organisation anywhere that works to that standard.

I've been to an event and read about it in the news and found the two were diametrically opposite to each other, and I've heard many say the same thing.

But big items you might hope would at least eventually come out right.

So consider the big news of the last decade which I guess would be the Iraq War. Pretty well everyone outside the US opposed it and at least for the first few years most people in the US supported it.

Why the difference?

Different news.

I don't think anyone in the World outside the US would bother to look at US news because it is just garbage. Everything important is missing.