It has become immensely difficult for the general public in settling with the journalist’s real and intended objective in the society
Journalists are imposed with a very complex job and often fight with their inner advocate when it comes to ethical conduct. They frequently incur battles between their inner advocacy and professionalism. The general public, who serve as the audience and demand to be perfectly informed on issues without bias opinions, mostly find it difficult when dealing with a journalist’s work. For instance, Donald Trump’s fans have repeatedly accused the media of being biased towards Trump in the 2016 elections, and stated that the media has failed in delivering news that looks at the adverse factors of both the sides. To be honest, I don’t blame them. Neither do I blame CNN. It is a complex issue, where the journalists have a dispute between their rational opinions and the objective of their job, and the general public failed to understand the complexity and believe that they aren’t being informed but manipulated.
It is a natural human tendency to pay attention to your indisputable moral values and advocate for the ideas you believe in. Journalists are, in a way, responding to this natural tendency for what we perceive as being unethical. If journalists remain neutral on issues and perform their job of merely collecting and reporting news, wouldn’t it be considered as insensitive for not advocating on certain issues that demand moral opinions?
Let’s take Trump’s scenario for instance. The media had to imply their basic moral outlook when reporting on Trump’s leaked tape that had him conversing in a lewd manner. Failure to imply such an outlook would make such a journalistic media look insensitive and immoral. However, Trump fans hatred for the media grew, and they wouldn’t nudge about their notion that the media was biased towards their beloved Trump.
However, the journalistic media crossed the limits on various occasions. During the election campaigns, the journalistic media failed to shed enough light on the workings of Clinton, which could have made the voters more educated in their political decisions. The sensationalised and emotional coverage of Trump by the media just made things worse. What it has repeatedly failed to do is provide a balanced analysis on Trump. Instead, it has concentrated more on Trump’s impulses and emotional activities.
So how do we exactly approach this complex problem of finding common ground? I believe the solution lies with the moderation of both the journalistic media and the way the common public perceive information. As composite problems arise, it is paramount that journalists present the facts and their opinions in such a way that lets the common public know which is which. In other words, the journalistic media needs to experiment on its mode of presentation and arrive with a result that lets the audience separate opinions from facts. The public, on the other hand, needs to change the way they perceive information. They need to leave room for the media’s opinions and need to use these opinions and the provided facts to formulate their own judgements. Educational institutions need to nurture young minds in formulating an outlook using the facts and the journalist’s opinion. In a world with global political and military tensions, it is vital that the common public and the journalistic media are in sync so that rational democratic decisions are made.