Talk:Journalistic malpractice
I'm assuming that this is a work in progress and that the uncited opinions are just in passing? HelpJazz 14:36, 20 October 2008 (EDT)
- PS: I had to type a CAPTCHA to create this page even though there was no link, and it took me four times!!! HelpJazz 14:38, 20 October 2008 (EDT)
Term use
Wouldn't journalistic malpractice describe when any journalist does something unethical in their practice? Also, wouldn't malpractice require negligence? LiamG 18:46, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
- Agreed on both points. HelpJazz 18:53, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
- Would it be logical to redirect to liberal bias? --Jpatt 19:33, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
- ...only if you are trying to argue that journalistic malpractice is only perpetrated by liberals and never, once, in all of history by a non-liberal and that journalistic malpractice is does not happen enough to warrent its own article. Otherwise, yeah, it would be kind of illogical to redirect. HelpJazz 19:53, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
- Well, now that you mention it. I can't think of a single instance journalist malpractice has been used by a conservative journalist. Maybe because I am naive or maybe because the field is dominated by liberal-bots who don't have any moral values. Liberal bias has to do with media bias. Journalistic malpractice has to do with liberals in the media. So I am guessing that the redirect is logical.--Jpatt 20:20, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
- I can't think of any, so I guess it doesn't happen at all ;-)
- Journalistic malpractice (with maybe the exception of the mention in the Washington Post, which is the most reliable source and which lambasts all journalists, not just liberals) seems to be used most commonly as hyperbole, and most often by conservatives. This does not mean, however, that liberals are the only ones to perpetrate it; it means conservatives care about it more. In general, though, there is no malpractice, because, as Liam mentioned, there is no proof of negligence.
- If you have to remove the content of this page, just have it deleted, don't redirect. If you redirect it than anyone who looks up "journalistic malpractice" will make false assumptions about the nature of JM. HelpJazz 21:04, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
- Well, now that you mention it. I can't think of a single instance journalist malpractice has been used by a conservative journalist. Maybe because I am naive or maybe because the field is dominated by liberal-bots who don't have any moral values. Liberal bias has to do with media bias. Journalistic malpractice has to do with liberals in the media. So I am guessing that the redirect is logical.--Jpatt 20:20, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
- ...only if you are trying to argue that journalistic malpractice is only perpetrated by liberals and never, once, in all of history by a non-liberal and that journalistic malpractice is does not happen enough to warrent its own article. Otherwise, yeah, it would be kind of illogical to redirect. HelpJazz 19:53, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
Reworked Page
Awaiting HelpJazz approval. --Jpatt 22:32, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
- First of all, you don't need my approval, but I enjoy giving my opinion :) The article is better in the respect that it acknowedges that JM doesn't have to be a left/right thing, but now there is waaaay much more uncited opinion than there was before ("to further a hidden agenda", "malpractice has killed objectivity", " One of their goals is to selectively edited staements to hide the facts or perpetrate falsehoods", and so on). HelpJazz 22:51, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
Objectivity as the always unacceptable term
The phrase "objective journalism" was only a legend. "Objective" has been promoted very well in its adjective form, but in reality objective journalism was always the noun form. They were able to achieve this status because they captured all of the media at the same time - CBS lauds how objective MBS is while at the same time ABC and everybody else pats each other on the back and it becomes true because it is said to be true. "Objectivity" in reporting was always about a certain style of reporting, not straight up truth. It's time to bring their own history into the discussion. Progressingamerica (talk) 09:51, November 17, 2021 (EST)
- Fully agreed, especially when the founder of so-called "objective journalism" Walter Lippmann as you pointed out earlier openly advocated for lying to the masses in his book Public Opinion, specifically the chapter Manufacturing of Consent, and there's evidence that he never truly became conservative even when going against the USSR, certainly never gave up on socialism.
- Heck, forget journalism, objectivity in ANYTHING is a lie. The Encyclopédie arguably was the first modern case of Fake News disguised as objective journalism, pretending to be purely objective, yet at the same time subtly pushing lies against the Church and God, especially under Voltaire and Diderot's direction. And they succeeded to such an extent that they're falsely considered promoters of free speech when in reality they SHOULD be remembered as being the progenitors of both SJW cancel culture AND progressivism. Don't take it from me. Just read up Abbe Barruel's Jacobin memoirs and Timothy Dwight's takes on it. Pokeria1 (talk) 13:54, November 21, 2021 (EST)
- I wouldn't call malpractice a "field". I mean, what the heck? This article evidently was created before the term 'fake news' came into existence. A merger now is probably out of the question. But can somebody fix that opening sentence? RobSLet's Go Brandon! 14:24, November 21, 2021 (EST)