My accolades to the Chicago Tribune for taking a first step to return journalism to the USA.
The Chicago Tribune article titled: Changes coming to paper to clarify what is news vs. what is opinion, reports the paper will separate the news from opinions of columnists “to make clearer to what is news reporting and what is opinion writing.”
The Purpose of This Post
Is to relate an ancient wisdom proverb about gossip and extend my accolades to the Chicago Tribune for taking a first step to restore the purpose of journalism to the USA to hopefully accomplish what Mark Twain stated news journalism should accomplish.
King Solomon
Proverbs 17:9 – He that covered a transgression seecatch love; but he that repeated a matter separated [very] friends.
Proverbs 18:8 – The words of a talebearer [are] as wounds, and they go down into the innermost parts of the belly.
Mark Twain 1863
“A newspaper is not just for reporting the news as it is, but to make people mad enough to do something about it.”
“If you don’t read the newspaper, you’re uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you’re mis-informed.”
What’s My Point?
If you discern the above proverbs with Mark Twain’s statements and consider that when news is not separated from opinions, and some opinions are tainted with views that are borderline gossip, the result of news can be detrimental to what the purpose of news journalism is supposed to be as taught in journalism school courses.
“The first purpose of Journalism is to provide people with the information they need to be free and self-governing.”
In My Opinion
The Chicago Tribune has taken a leadership role to restore journalism to separating truth in news from opinions and gossip.
Mark Twain recognized the significance of what journalism is needed in a Democracy. To make people mad enough to do something about it to be self-governing.
What we are now experiencing in our nation is the sad result of too many news sources inserting opinions and gossip which is serving to make people mad about opinions and gossip rather than truthful news journalism.
If Interested
Read this Source Links Below.
You Decide
Did the Chicago Tribune make a wise or foolish first step decision for journalism to be restored to the purpose to provide information need for our Nation’s citizens to be self-governing to maintain a Democracy principal as envisioned by our Nation’s founders?
Or is news reporting being slanted and misinforming reader’s “bellies” by certain principals who instead have self-interests in the news they are reporting?
Regards and goodwill blogging.
Source Links
Chicago Tribune July 28, 2020
Previous Post – Series on Fake News
Mark Twain
https://rudymartinka.com/2017/09/18/king-solomon-fake-news-mark-twain/
Bible Verses on Gossip
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Bible-Verses-About-Gossip-And-Lies/
I tend to agree. All the cable news networks use a similar formula…. break the news then have talking heads comment on it almost immediately, and many times the commentary is not itself even balanced in some traditional attempt to meet the yin-yang with everything political. I personally don’t find that news presentation formula all that “bad” given I’ve been able to apply my own level of critical thinking acceptance before I might decide to go “whole hog” and agree with one side or the other. But given all humans are different most have some sort of actual lives and don’t sit 24/7 on CNN or FOX, or could care less about politics and readily accept what’s told to them, etc. The public in general is pretty sway-able. Might be nice to have at least one network that reports the news separately from opinion for those who find a level of comfort getting their news that way. The tricky part in providing opinion (fact check reporting is not opinion if facts are verified) is to be objective then opinion from all sides should be reflected… and our fast news cycle doesn’t always allow for a news department scrounging around trying to find a separate commentator for all sides at the last minute. Print media can do that much better.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Doug.
Thanks for your comment and adding more insight on the subject of facts and facts checking.
For example, you stated, the tricky part in providing opinion (fact check reporting is not opinion if facts are verified) is to be objective then opinion from all sides should be reflected……”
As for fact checking, in my opinion after reading numerous various fact checkers, they too are inserting opinions which inserts a factor on the objectivity of the facts.
Frankly, I believe the Chicago Tribune by changing its format is acknowledging that inserting opinions into news is not what journalism main purpose.
Add that not everyone is interested in critical thinking and frankly in my opinion, some are both very gullible. Or have grown up with a lot bias inserted into them from both parents, teachers, peers if off purpose journalism under the guise of news.
In my opinion reporting that is adding to the need to separate news facts from opinions which if based on falsehoods is gossip that enters into their bellies and minds.
Regards and goodwill blogging.
LikeLike
While I think commentary might best be served separate from news reporting for most people, commentary does specifically provide some level of context in summarizing how the news being reported might affect our lives, the nation, politics, society, etc. I don’t pretend that I know all the ramifications of a breaking news report, much less being able to recall what I might know in my mind at the moment I have a wrench in hand and covered in grease. I can certainly use any voice with context to refresh my own perspective.
Regarding fact checking… that fact alone should suggest some level of objectivity in reporting. Makes little sense being a fact checking site and leaning one way or the other.
I go to all the major ones.. which is about three who are specifically in the business to independent fact check. There’s room to form my own conclusions on what facts they might have checked but while conclusions can be different, the facts generally remain the same.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Doug,
I agree commentary is helpful to help understanding of news reports.
For example, Trump signed an executive order to supposedly help reduce prescription drug prices. Frankly, I do not understand how it will relate to my prescription drugs.
Which brings up another aspect of bias news reporting. The Chicago Tribune had no mention. Was it selective because or are they prioritizing news about other issues and have to decide what their readers prefer to read about, mainly, coronavirus, shootings, etc.etc?
I read the link below and frankly would like someone to explain their opinions on the pro and cons. Seems if helps diabetics who have been getting ripped off big time when you consider what they paid for it in the past compared to what they are paying now.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/07/28/is_trump_bluffing_on_rx_drugs_dems_must_act_fast_to_find_out.html
Regards and goodwill blogging.
LikeLike
You make an excellent point… especially if one needs pricey drugs to stay afloat. I am very suspect when Trump does these things because by nature he is not a benevolent person at all (read Mary Trumps’ book for starters). He goes off on whims. So I have no idea what this declaration is all about. If Congress signs on to it.. I dunno that it’s even a priority given the pandemic. They are going to argue is goes too far, it doesn’t go far enough… then the pork piles onto it… and the Prez will kick it back for some pork thing and nothing to do about drugs, which is the entire intent of the thing. Our system surely is not perfect.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Doug,
You stated, “Our system surely is not perfect.”
Check out this link of members in Congress who are incumbent, it seems to be perfect for them, in my opinion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_members_of_the_United_States_Congress_by_wealth
I seem to remember reading that most people elected to Congress seem to make a lot of money while in office and not as a result of their salaries.
We need term limits in my opinion because it is almost impossible to run against an incumbent who for some reason gathers a lot of support from the people and families who work or profit while he or she is in office, unless they really screw up or get caught doing something illegal.
Regards and goodwill blogging.
LikeLike
Interesting spread of wealth there.. although that list goes to 40… which is a minority in Congress. One might presume a rich Congressperson wouldn’t so easily be swayed by a PAC donating lobbyist.
I guess I’m on the fence on term limits for Congress… at least short term limits. Not sure I agree with these old codgers sitting in Congress for 25 or 30 years. There’s no reason for that. But… there’s something to be said for the vote of the people meaning anyone the majority votes for, as that’s the democratic way.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Doug,
You stated on the subject of term limits, “as that’s the democratic way. “
However, I do not believe our founders ever intended for anyone to server more than two terms.
One reason was George Washington’s parting speech.
The other reason is they set a minimum age limit of 35 years for anyone to serve as President back during a time when the average lifetime was 40 years old.
This would certainly serve to prevent anyone from being in office “25 -30 years.
I wrote a post about it if interested.
https://rudymartinka.com/2015/04/12/king-solomon-on-the-right-time-for-presidential-leadership/
In our times the average age is 78 years, and if the age over time was adjusted as the founders intended, we would not have anyone eligible to run unless they were perhaps 62 years so they could not server more than two terms before they begin having dementia problems similar to one candidate presently running for President.
As for term limits in Congress, most people cannot interrupt their business careers to serve in office.
And that is why we have a lot of career politicians who after making their millions, want to server in office, some sadly to protect their millions from being taken away from them in the form of taxation and/or to protect their business investments..
Regards and goodwill blogging.
LikeLike
Well, I’m not as cynical as you about politicians and rich people.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Doug
Interesting word you chose to describe my comments about politicians and super-rich.
Recommend you read the following link which contains these two paragraphs.
“Asking questions and being curious is tantamount to critical and creative thinking. I’ve noticed that the less time I focus on my snarky, cynical responses, the more likely I’ll have an actually useful idea. I also tend to pay more attention to the world around me and stop to appreciate the creativity of others.”
“Cynics’ propensity to spot setups and snow jobs before the rest of us also makes them socially valuable. Infamous cynic Maureen Dowd, for instance, did a Pulitzer-winning job of highlighting tragic flaws in the Clinton administration. “Cynics deserve more respect than they get,” Bayan says. “You need naysayers who will shut down ideas that are extreme or just plain foolish.”
Many who read King Solomon’s Ecclesiastes observation of his life describe his writings as being cynical.
I am now wondering if you paid me a compliment by describing my views about politicians and super rich (not all, but mostly a large portion) as cynical instead of skeptical, perhaps?
Regards and goodwill blogging.
https://lifehacker.com/how-to-stop-being-a-cynical-asshole-1537302138.
LikeLike