It would be hard not to get smothered when reading newspapers. I believe this is a common phenomenon globally, an epidemic that plainly degrades human mentality. The virus in fact is not a lethal strain, but a lot of humans are prone to its effect, for they are devoid of the immunity - rationality. Contrary to many economists, philosophers, scientists and, needless to say, theologists, a lot of humans are still animals but are worse in that they have been deprived of the instinct on which animals rely to survive and thrive. The deprivation, regrettably, was, long time ago, given by rational humans who assimilated their irrational counterparts, albeit unconsciously and accidentally.
If one who has been educated asks, 'is today's news a truthful account of the day's events?', he must be an idiot (naive and uncynical, both attributes should be worth my appraise). When Heroic Capitalism is doomed, capitalism per se is hallow and open to invasion of undesirable elements, of which one is greed. This is sometimes still misunderstood, misrepresented or mistaken as what was depicted in the movie Wall Street. It is not. The reason is not obvious when today's news reporting singularly fails to bring out any truth other than the very incident itself - and sometimes it fails this one too, which is utterly saddening but inevitably accepted by us who are rational and clear in their mind. Perhaps 2 decades ago, I was told, very well, by popular TV series, that a journalist was an unhaloed angel. A journalist had the responsibility to bring out the truth, report the truth and reveal the injustice if such the truth behind the incident caused the injustice. A journalist endeavoured to dig out the truth and made justice be done. Very simple, direct though innocent way of thought. Indeed it was noble and ought to be respected but not looked down upon as a lot of us do today. So today, should there be certain standards, or golden rule, of journalism in news that a decent human, a decent professional journalist should follow and admire? Perhaps we should cite a plausible definition of news. Who can define news? Let me see if Jack Fuller, the Pulitzer Prize-winning Chicago Tribune journalist and former President of Tribune Publishing, is perhaps a qualified person. Mr. Fuller best defines news as a report of what a news organisation has recently learned about matters of some significance or interest to the specific community that news organisation serves. Journalism today is not the same as it was over half a century ago, very well. Jim Squires says that journalism 'even at its worst and most unfair... once had as its goal a quest for accuracy and perspective that would eventually provide truth. News, itself, is best defined by the Hutchinson Commission on freedom of the pres in 1947 as a truthful, comprehensive, and intelligent account of the day's events in a context which gives them meaning. On top of that, a responsible newspaper must judge what defines the significance of the news but only what the readers want to read. Only and want are italicised, for the conditionals are important and should not be twisted in order to get oneself the pretext to go wrong.
It would hardly not be frustrated, in addition to being smothered, after learning of these brilliantly described rules in journalism and reading newspaper of today's. But what has gone wrong in fact? I should say it again, when Heroic Capitalism (I recalled that Lord Clark said of Heroic Materialism in his landmark TV documentary Civilisation) is dying and becomes defunct, our world goes back to the Dark Ages, only this time we do not have Thomas Acquinas, Duns Scotus, Francis Bacon .... to name but a few.
No comments:
Post a Comment