jour·nal·ist
NOUN
a person who writes for newspapers, magazines, or news websites or prepares news to be broadcast.
In the United States there is a grand document called The Bill of Rights. In this document there are amendments to the US Constitution. Today the 1st Amendment is under attack. Many of the people who attack the freedom of speech do not actually understand its importance. I mean think about it. Silencing speech does not actually stop hate. In reality, silencing speech you do not like actually breeds more hate. Silencing those voices not only builds more hate it does not give them the opportunity to be wrong. That is by far more important than silencing them. Giving someone the opportunity to be wrong also gives a chance for change. Here is a scenario to illustrate what I am saying.
In a world where all the hate speech has been silenced you walk into a gas station for snacks. The owner behind the counter hates you for x reason. You don’t know that and happily shop there giving him your business. Do you want to give your hard-earned money to someone who hates you?
In a world where ignorant people can speak whatever they want. You walk into the same gas station for snacks. The owner behind the counter calls you x name because he hates your kind. You walk out go to next gas station where you are welcome and let everyone know about the crazy hater at the first gas station. All of a sudden, he starts losing business. This gives him the opportunity to be wrong and actually cause course correction in behavior. Why because you hit him in the wallet and his own business suffers.
There is also another important side of the First amendment though. Journalism is under attack. Every time you turn to twitter, YouTube, Facebook, or any other platform you see the conversation of who CAN make the rules and WHO has the right to speak and be the authority. As you are probably painfully aware. Elon Musk purchased twitter and it has been one article or video after another about how good or bad this is. He is letting “demons” tweet. He is for freedom of speech. He is the <blank>.
Then you find out that parts of the Federal Government had warned that hey let’s censor Hunter laptop story. Let’s fact check this statement by referencing another article with no resources to reference. Let’s silence this professor, doctor, politician, or whoever the feds say is wrong because we can. This paragraph sums up exactly why the 1st Amendment was made to begin with. The federal government has exactly zero authority to deny freedom of speech. Specifically, when calling out the Government to begin with. The best example I can give here is the groups of doctors and researchers who said Covid was lab leaked and unnatural. The response is oh those people are not the professionals you should listen to. CDC is the authority. Um, no they are not. While they can be correct if you are not willing to talk to other professionals in the same fields you are in to collaborate or work with them on the actual understanding of what the virus is vs in not then you are not the authority you make yourself to be. Instead, you have become a bureaucratic authoritarian who is going to make the rules and ignore other possible scientific data. That doesn’t make you the authority that makes you ignorant. The fact that similar authoritarian acts happen in all fields across social media addresses a huge problem. Who has the authority to investigate and write down their findings.
The same goes for mainstream media. They get to tell the news with their opinions all the while hiding facts and resources so the only way, they can be fact checked is by circling another article that agrees with their point of view. Many times, this may actually be an article from another subsidiary of some news organization. If you need an example, it would be Washing Post fact checking Jeff Bezos. Or Donald Trump being fact checked by Truth Social. Both can happen without real evidence to support facts. For one without seeing the open books I would believe nothing that is fact checked by a news group who works with our federal government. Why? It’s simple $$$
Silencing critics earns more power to those who wish to stay in power. Lie, cheat, and steal is all these politicians do. One group whole heartedly follows them and eats ever word said. The other group just seems hellbent on doing the same thing if they get power.
So how do we tie this into journalism? Well, the very definition of journalism does not have to do with newspaper or news agencies anymore. The definition states person who prepares news to be broadcast. We live in a world now where anyone can broadcast therefore anyone can be a journalist. Which brings up a few scenarios. Why is the “authoritative sources” doing so little for journalism. The problem is when verifying these sources. While I have noticed a lot more citizen journalists doing on the work with boots on the ground. The ones complaining are the very ones that do not actually do research for their articles. It is very unsettling that those journalists are propped up by large media conglomerates while the boots on the ground journalists are told to sit down and shut up. Another large component in this issue is ethics. Many cite federal employees and say they work in the industry, and they know what is going on. While others tend to host both perspectives and facts from opposing viewpoints. A federal employee working in a research lab is not necessarily smarter or better equipped than a researcher in the private sector. That is why peer reviewed articles are much more important than just taking someone’s word for it.
This is probably the most important part of journalism. If I am going to put my name on the byline, I want to be as accurate as possible. Leaving no room for someone to say I did not do my due diligence. So why do all journalists not do this? It’s fairly simple, confirmation bias. We want our side to be right now matter the cost. Ethics be damned. At least that’s the way it feels when I read articles from CNN, WaPo, USA Today, Fox, and other large news organizations. When it comes to the freelance, citizens journalists however, we just want the truth.
So, what is the truth? The truth is going to be based on reality and be above reproach. Does that mean we wouldn’t make errors? No. But that does mean if we make an error, we will also make a retraction as big as the article. Today news cycles so fast that is hardly ever done in a manner that truly makes a difference. If I write an article and it becomes a headline and I find it was in error, I want to write the retraction. I also want it to be just a big if not bigger than the original headline. At the end of the day, I would want individuals to be more informed.
Ronald Regan once said the worst words you could hear was “Hi, we’re from the government and we are here to help.” If a news article looks like it is kissing up to any governmental entity, best practice would be skeptical of how you should feel about it. Censorship should also never be a part of this process and when the government says it should be censored then we have a problem. That is exactly what the second amendment was protecting you from. Doesn’t matter if it’s in paper format or on twitter if any federal employee is involved in regulating that information or suppressing it then its illegal.
The most accurate portrayal of these peddled lies is in a quote that is often attributed to Mark Twain and to Winston Churchill depending on the source.
“A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on”