Due to the risks involved, I’ve always respected foreign correspondents and especially admired those covering active war zones. Nevertheless, too much of contemporary ‘journalism’ seems motivated more by a paycheck and publication (‘a buck and a byline’) than a genuine strive to expose thus challenge the corrupt powerful who abuse/exploit those with the least in this increasingly unjust global existence.
Also, while journalism’s traditional fundamental function is/was to “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable,” to a noticeable degree there seems to have been a redefining, or even a reversal, as to what/who constitutes an “afflicted” and “the comfortable”.
As a good example, the new “afflicted” requiring news-media comforting may include an increasingly internationally criticized/unpopular Israeli government and Israel Defense Forces as they continue the slaughter of large numbers of Gazan non-combatants young and old, when in the past it would more likely and rightly have been Palestinian civilians, as the latter resist having their ancestral lands gradually annexed while being cleansed from it. It indeed is a modern-day David versus Goliath scenario.
Journalists with genuine integrity should and would tender their resignations and even publicly proclaim they can no longer help propagate their employer’s media product, whether it involves self-censored/missing coverage of a brutally-lopsided foreign war or that of domestic corporate corruption that will harm the populace.
Quite frankly, it’s their ethical/moral duty to publicly reveal the compromised news-media product and therefor its facilitator. By doing so, such brave journalists can at least then also proclaim they will no longer participate in its creation and/or dissemination.
Over decades, there's been too many cases of employees not standing up and doing what is necessary for the public and/or human(e) good, instead excusing themselves with something like: ‘I need this job — I have a family to support’. I’m afraid that — unless, of course, they were actually forced into coupling, copulating and procreating however many years before — such familial obligation status does not actually ethically or morally justify their willing involvement.
I’ve also heard journalists reply to an accusation of unprofessionalism with, ‘I’m just the messenger.’ Whatever the news media may be, they're not ‘just the messenger’; nor are they ‘just a reflection’ of the community or readership amongst whom they circulate.
The Guardian have been a mouthpiece for Israel for a long time, and the only thing they have been guarding is their own survival. Please check out Jonathan Cook’s articles on Th Guardian. He knows them from the inside and either way he is a fantastic independent journalist.
Due to the risks involved, I’ve always respected foreign correspondents and especially admired those covering active war zones. Nevertheless, too much of contemporary ‘journalism’ seems motivated more by a paycheck and publication (‘a buck and a byline’) than a genuine strive to expose thus challenge the corrupt powerful who abuse/exploit those with the least in this increasingly unjust global existence.
Also, while journalism’s traditional fundamental function is/was to “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable,” to a noticeable degree there seems to have been a redefining, or even a reversal, as to what/who constitutes an “afflicted” and “the comfortable”.
As a good example, the new “afflicted” requiring news-media comforting may include an increasingly internationally criticized/unpopular Israeli government and Israel Defense Forces as they continue the slaughter of large numbers of Gazan non-combatants young and old, when in the past it would more likely and rightly have been Palestinian civilians, as the latter resist having their ancestral lands gradually annexed while being cleansed from it. It indeed is a modern-day David versus Goliath scenario.
Journalists with genuine integrity should and would tender their resignations and even publicly proclaim they can no longer help propagate their employer’s media product, whether it involves self-censored/missing coverage of a brutally-lopsided foreign war or that of domestic corporate corruption that will harm the populace.
Quite frankly, it’s their ethical/moral duty to publicly reveal the compromised news-media product and therefor its facilitator. By doing so, such brave journalists can at least then also proclaim they will no longer participate in its creation and/or dissemination.
Over decades, there's been too many cases of employees not standing up and doing what is necessary for the public and/or human(e) good, instead excusing themselves with something like: ‘I need this job — I have a family to support’. I’m afraid that — unless, of course, they were actually forced into coupling, copulating and procreating however many years before — such familial obligation status does not actually ethically or morally justify their willing involvement.
I’ve also heard journalists reply to an accusation of unprofessionalism with, ‘I’m just the messenger.’ Whatever the news media may be, they're not ‘just the messenger’; nor are they ‘just a reflection’ of the community or readership amongst whom they circulate.
Noticed that even the Guardian uses "Israel-Gaza war". "Israel-Hamas war" would be more accurate.
The Guardian have been a mouthpiece for Israel for a long time, and the only thing they have been guarding is their own survival. Please check out Jonathan Cook’s articles on Th Guardian. He knows them from the inside and either way he is a fantastic independent journalist.
Yep, I read Jonathan Cook's stuff, it is really eye-opening! Thanks Avigail. :-)
Good point.