Choose your news wisely

Where do you get your news?

Greek Stoic philosopher Epictetus C.55 – 135 AD, said, "[t]he essence of human nature, is the faculty of choice."

How do you choose your news? Are the papers your parents read the ones you read today? For me, the answer is yes. Until the internet arrived, I never thought much about where my news came from. When I got interested in the news, I just bought the paper my parents bought, The Sydney Morning Herald.

Today, we have thousands of choices to read the news from points of views that are so different it can be mind-boggling to sort out who is telling the truth.

Here is the way one person has decided to find their news. What is agreeable is true. What is disagreeable is false; hence fake news. You might guess that person is the current president of America, Donald Trump.

One can assume that what Donald Trump finds disagreeable hurts his views, and or America's views, as he sees it. And what he finds agreeable favours his views, and or American views.

If we only get our news from places that align with our pre-existing opinions, then we are likely never to find anything new in our news. That type of news just adds weight to our biases.

As a normal citizen, the favouring of that "news gathering" technique might cause you harm. Because you only get information that you already agree with and not having all the information will harm you. But as a president of a country who guides millions of people and is in charge of the most powerful nation on earth that is very dangerous. Because not everyone thinks like the president of America, and some of his thoughts may be wrong or misguided.

The radicalisation of people to whatever idea comes from people only accessing one side of the news or information. What is being taught at some universities and schools around the world is how news can be tested and verified. So a student will end up with a more balanced view of subjects. The issue with this can be there is so much opinion, views, and commentary in the news today that the real news is hard to find and difficult to process.

The principle that drives our filtering of the news is based upon our pre-existing views. If schools and universities can teach students how to process the news to find the facts of a story, I'd suggest that societies will end up with a more balanced and empathetic graduate. And not just people who have a one-world view and create policies based on that view.

What can journalism do for me?

Who needs Journalism?

As much as I criticise certain practices of journalism and media outlets, we need them.

Journalism is supposed to mirror humanity. Newspapers report on what humans and nature does. How do we know that journalists are getting it right? How can we know that they are telling the truth?

Our relationships with each other and the trust we put in our governments and the rules they make are based upon them doing the right thing. We trust our partners and friends and our governments to do the right thing. When they don't do what we expect, it lets us down, and we feel betrayed.

Newspapers and journalists have a job that sets them apart from most of us in society. They set out to tell the truth about matters. Few of us will tell the truth if it hurts or inconveniences us or our loved ones. Newspapers have a tradition of exposing and telling the truth. They also have a history of lying, covering things up and not reporting on matters if it sets them or their views in a bad light.

That's one of the major problems with newspapers. They should not have a view. But the reality is they do. Almost every newspaper today takes sides and puts forward their views. Therefore, they should not be trusted.

However, we still need them. Newspapers can't be trusted 100% of the time, neither can anyone on this earth, but they are necessary. Imagine a world without newspapers and journalists. Actually, you don't have to imagine, just look at certain countries or read George Orwell's 1984.

I hate thinking that for every story I read in a newspaper I have to fact-check it. But this is what needs to be done if you want to find out the real truth of a story. In a previous article, I suggest several methods. Should a reader have to fact-check a story? 

We need journalism to be as accurate as possible. There are several groups around the world that are trying to make journalism better and more accountable. The Society of Professional Journalists is one. A few media outlets have set up training centres for journalists, like the Journalism Trainee Scheme by the BBC.

The ABC in Australia has a program that lets people know how their government works. Who Runs This Place? Which, "explores who has real clout in Australia and how power works and how it is changing."

Things like "Who runs this place?" is one of the things that journalism can do for you. For instance, in their program The Lobbyists you can hear how they discover that there are 1700 lobbyists who have security passes that give them access to our elected officials in the Australian Parliament. The fact that there are only 227 members in the senate and the house of representatives, that's a lot of lobbyists. Some lobbyists work for companies who have made donations to our political parties.

It is facts like these that we need journalism for. Good journalism helps hold our democracy accountable. Countries that do not have a free press suffer from a lack of basic human rights. Good journalism can help maintain your rights.

What is journalism for?

What is a newspaper today?

I was born in 1960. Australian newspapers of that time contained almost only news and advertisements. Searching through Trove, I found no commentary, views or opinion on the news from papers back then.

The same newspapers today contain much more than just news and ads. There is basically something for everyone today in a standard newspaper. But there is also opinion columns, views on many news subjects and commentary included in news articles. Why is there a difference between then and now?

Is it that newspapers are trying to emulate the type of discussion that happens on social media sites? I don't think so, because opinion columns in newspapers predate social media as we know it now. Some in America go back to the early 1900s.

While some newspaper articles contain opinions of experts, witnesses, and participants, most newspapers today include comment about leading news stories from their editors. I don't know about you, but I don't buy newspapers to read comments on what an editor thinks about the actions of others. I do not read op-ed columns and never have. But newspapers make them an important section of their publications.

Many newspaper editors are more informed about issues in the world, but their opinions are no more important than the opinions of anyone else. Why the world has bought into the idea that editors can solve the problems of the world better than anyone else remains a mystery to me. Do we want to be directed by someone we don't even know, so, therefore, cannot possibly trust?

I feel op-ed columns and the like is one of the reasons that people have turned away from newspapers today. 

The prime function of a newspaper is to expose and tell the truth. Opinions, no matter how well informed, they only cover one side of the story, unlike factual journalism. 

I find newspapers and media outlets supporting one side of politics or the other to be an immoral use of their function. Newspapers that do this are not newspapers, they are tools of a one-sided and oppressive organisation.

Newspapers and media outlets that support one side of anything have ruined what used to be a fair and free communication tool for the people of the world. 

Newspapers should seek the truth and report on it. Newspapers should balance the publics need to know while minimizing harm and remain within the law. Newspapers should be accountable and transparent and supply ethical journalism that serves the public.

Opinions do not solve problems. Facts and balance help people figure out the issues of the world, and then people can act on fixing problems.