2020’s journalists, story/truth tellers or domestic terrorists?

I’ll sound like a grumpy old man yelling at cloud, but in my day, journalists aimed to tell the facts and the various positions without bias. These days the news channels are becoming polarised. It’s no doubt that instead of giving facts, we can paraphrase Plato that those who tell the stories rule the world. I’m not saying that journalists rule the world per se, but politicians hoping for favourable press would regularly woo the owners of media conglomerates. So the question needs to be posed, are journalists mere mouthpieces for their seniors or do they have the ability to have some journalistic integrity? To what extent do editors and the owners of the media influence the outcome?

I once dated a journalist and grew an appreciation for their aspiration to emulate the best of journalists, this was usually discussing various topics and the occasional mention of the movie Spotlight. Suffice to say that my cynicism (or realism) never went down well, even after a few pints. However, studies have found recently that we are at a critical point with respect to reporting of facts. The democratisation of “news” or “reporting” via the use of social media is challenging even the most astute of minds, as the 2020’s is seeing the rise of citizen journalists. The challenge with these citizen journalists versus traditional journalism is the educational, professionalism, oversight from the organisations editors and a perception that the traditional journalist will at least try to remain unbiased. Therefore, it might be that citizen journalists are closer to topics or issues, but may not be the best to report broadly, nevertheless, provide at times a valuable unheard (or glossed over) perspective.

In thinking of historical journalists, I remember studying Ancient History and one man comest to mind who is at times called the father of history (or ancient journalism), Herodotus. While history is written by the victor, thereby inflating of odds to make the events more fantastic, where Herodotus stated that Xerxes brought 2 million soldiers, when in fact it was closer to 200 thousand. It is inevitable that historical texts favour the writers perspective. While this individual or organisation bias is still prevalent today, we’ve always had threads or scintillas of individuals who strived to improve the written word and reporting. One such person was Joseph Pulitzer; however, he also engaged in sensationalism called yellow journalism which seems to persist today. Considering the historical context, what we are experiencing is nothing new, but a continuation of what has always occurred.

So why do politicians use journalists? Well let’s consider the chief architect of propaganda of the modern era and the first name is usually “Paul Joseph Goebbels” who was the engine behind the 1930’s German party that led to world war 2. Propaganda is essentially biased information that aims to promote a political cause or point of view. With that in mind, then how does the CNN of the Democrats or Fox of the Republicans differ? One can easily argue that the lexicon used by each of the two media outlets is biased, so then the next question is, are there any “unbiased” media outlets? I’d regrettably argue that all are biased to a degree, on a particular topic or issue.

So what restraints do we have in Australia against a Capitol like event? In NSW, the crime of incitement excludes political matters, but does include religious. The commonwealth has specific sections dealing with treason and treachery, which seem to be the most likely charge to anyone found guilty or holding out propaganda as news. However, it is more likely that a person or organisation might be found guilty under the Anti Terrorism laws, if they were to publish propaganda like in 1930s Germany.

However, the government doesn’t seem use their own laws against a clearly biased media that tries to influence government policy. Recently, NSW has seen countless journalists argue with politicians, raising alarm bells about the current Omicron variant, the rising numbers and a strong desire to see mask mandates and other restrictions. Since 2001, countries have established anti terrorism laws and they have slowly encroached on journalists, or so they claim, nevertheless, some journalists have been targeted, even in Australia; however, in 2005 it was called out, yet there is a lack of floodgates, which is evident of the cautious usage of these laws. Whichever way you look at it, if the media is trying to influence a change of government or policy, they could fall foul of the Commonwealth criminal code.

Conclusion

If you’ve gotten this far, I’ve written this the wee hours of Christmas eve with a French vodka and soda. Have I really hit the mark or answered the questions posed? I hope that I have. Needless to say that some will argue confirmation bias, others that I have no idea, meanwhile some might agree. Either way, it is certain that if you’re searching for “just-the-facts” news, it is unlikely that the main stream media will satisfy your thirst and you’ll need a cocktail of various sources to arrive at a balanced view. The problem is that, as Winston Churchill once put it, “the best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with an average voter”; thus, those “average voters” are most likely not astute enough to view more than one media source to question their opinions and will suffer from confirmation bias and stick to tabloids or yellow journalism. It’s possible that journalists could be prosecuted for their poor journalism, and to a degree, that is both a sword and shield to democracy. One note that I will end on, is that a few years ago I was introduced to VICE news and found it exceptional, then it went further left, then I moved to Al Jazeera; however, it’s views on Israel, contradict my beliefs. Either way, it will be a continual question for truth, by inducing cocktails of news to attain a balanced information source. Best of luck and would love to hear any other experiences.