Post by account_disabled on Feb 20, 2024 5:41:40 GMT -5
nEtworks in our daily lives. Giving voice to this type of content (opinions that are not topics) is to give exposure to the speaker and more power to their base . You simply cannot call a flat earther to speak on your television show or publish something in your newspaper, unless it is a comedy show. The role of the editor is to define what is relevant and what is not . It's not news just because a politician says it. If it is not relevant, it should not be published . If in doubt, ask for proof. If they do not demonstrate it, with data and/or facts, it does not deserve to be published. If the person speaking wants exposure, let them go to Facebook or WhatsApp and speak. Please note that it is not necessary to
adopt a political or scientific bias to classify content. Objectivity is enough. Read also: Responsibility and privacy in the press How “neutral news” creates polarizing news When we look at what people think about the news, we see that the public is increasingly polarized. Citizens' trust in vehicles is directly Rich People Phone Number List
related to political affinity. Lack of trust in politics (and politicians) translates into less trust in the news. Journalists, even when they try to be neutral, end up polarizing an issue. We can exemplify it with two issues, one national, the Lava Jato operation, and another global, global warming. In both cases, from the beginning their coverage was marked by a political perspective. For fear of
drawing conclusions, journalists, instead of defining an approach, ended up interviewing each political side of the issue in the best style of "impartial journalism." That may be the worst kind of journalism (the self-declared "neutral") . In the absence of concrete access to the facts, the media limits itself to listening to opinions. We know that climate change is real, we know that Lava Jato intends to fight corruption. Trying to remain "neutral", journalists approach these contents from a political point of view (two extremes). It is a disservice that newspapers do to the population by treating these issues in a politicized way. Every time a newspaper does not show journalistic objectivity it ends up reinforcing this polarizing position. This journalism keeps people uninformed and polarized, and it is up to readers to
adopt a political or scientific bias to classify content. Objectivity is enough. Read also: Responsibility and privacy in the press How “neutral news” creates polarizing news When we look at what people think about the news, we see that the public is increasingly polarized. Citizens' trust in vehicles is directly Rich People Phone Number List
related to political affinity. Lack of trust in politics (and politicians) translates into less trust in the news. Journalists, even when they try to be neutral, end up polarizing an issue. We can exemplify it with two issues, one national, the Lava Jato operation, and another global, global warming. In both cases, from the beginning their coverage was marked by a political perspective. For fear of
drawing conclusions, journalists, instead of defining an approach, ended up interviewing each political side of the issue in the best style of "impartial journalism." That may be the worst kind of journalism (the self-declared "neutral") . In the absence of concrete access to the facts, the media limits itself to listening to opinions. We know that climate change is real, we know that Lava Jato intends to fight corruption. Trying to remain "neutral", journalists approach these contents from a political point of view (two extremes). It is a disservice that newspapers do to the population by treating these issues in a politicized way. Every time a newspaper does not show journalistic objectivity it ends up reinforcing this polarizing position. This journalism keeps people uninformed and polarized, and it is up to readers to