Why I don’t like journalists working for “solid”
news agencies.
Boris
Brahman July 28 2001
I don’t like journalists who work for “solid”
news agencies, like “The New York Times”, “BBC”,
“Haaretz”, etc. Why only “solid” – because these
agencies declare themselves as independent truth
tellers, while they are actually businesses trying to
make money in shortest terms and at any cost. They
depend on our will to buy the product, the newspaper,
like toothpaste producers do. Therefore they are
writing and trying to sell us what they believe we
would like to read. My question is simple: “If a
newspaper writes what I want to read, maybe I can
write for myself?” Isn’t it a kind of absurd?
As the newspaper is a business, the journalists
must produce best-selling products: they can write
fast, use non-reliable information, and even lie in
order to create the product. Moreover they have to
please companies – the sources of advertisements, and
politicians – sources of sensations. This way the
journalists became:
a. Shallow and swift writers
b. Slaves of public wishes
c. Servants of the businesses
d. Carriers and casters of political opinions of
the politicians.
So, how we can hope to get the truth and deep
non-engaged analysis of problems from them.
It’s true that a newspaper must be a business, since
it must pay to it’s workers and contractors. The point
is that the popularity of a “solid” newspaper must be
based on telling of full and usually bitter truth,
give a deep and unengaged analysis of the problems and
defend the principles that our civilization based on.
[For the list see the Bible] I’m sure that this
newspaper will have readers, and therefore it can also
print ads in order to make the business more
successful. Again the advertisements must remain only
supplementary part of the business.
P.s. I don’t have any problem with “yellow”
newspapers. They are designed to dig for us
sensations, rumors, and fried facts. Therefore there
is no problem with a “yellow” journalism
|