Journalistic Ethics, the News, Modern Propaganda, and the Public Trust .

As we all might have noticed, for a while now the planet has been embroiled in turmoil. Ever since COVID-19 hit the worldwide scene early this year, things seem to be falling apart around us. Mass panic, mass deaths... a pandemic, for the love of God! The world truly seems to be well and truly on its' way to hell in a handbasket, quick like and in a hurry, in 2020... Or is it? Why is this the common trend of thought, that collapse is inevitable? Why is the world, seemingly and almost eagerly, embracing such a state of panic? Just what the hell is going on here, exactly?? . . . I have a theory about that, and it's a theory which goes beyond the mere reaction of the world to this novel virus. The fact is, the existence of this virus isn't necessarily relevent to what I mean to communicate here, as it merely serves to set the stage for my main point, which I will reveal soon. First, though... . . . Take a minute to look around. Go out on your porch. Take a deep breath of air. Watch as cars drive by, as they've always done. If you want to, walk or drive to the store... just don't forget to wear a mask. Even if you're not afraid of this virus, it's only polite to wear one, because others ARE afraid. Be respectul. Purchase your goods. Make your way back home. Now, observe the nation NOT under martial law. Observe the distinct lack of body bags filling high school gymnasiums. Notice the lack of military vehicles and armed solders patrolling the streets, enforcing a mandatory curfew during this State of Emergency. Notice how NORMAL everything is, despite everything. . . . Now ask yourself this... what's the difference between today, and any other day? If it's not apparent already, I'll supply the information. The difference is the news. The nature of the State of Fear that's constantly being hammered into our noggins has shifted. Nobody is talking about climate change anymore. Remember last year, how climate change used to be the boogey man? Remember how batshit insane people were going over the dire and imminent effects of climate change, just less than a year ago? According to the last peep I heard on the subject, mankind only had about twelve years left to enjoy a viable ecosystem, before the entire planet went KAPUT! Not anymore. No, I'm afraid that ship has sailed. Now, there's something even better than climate change to be afraid of! COVID-19. . . . Did anyone besides myself happen to notice how quickly climate changed just evaporated from the headlines, once COVID-19 came waltzing along? Why do you think that was? I'll tell you my theory. It's because climate change isn't an immediate fear, but COVID-19 sure as hell is. COVID-19 is just the latest version of an unending supply of States of Fear which are constantly being switched out for bigger and better ones. It's the way Big Media operates in conjunction with Big Government. That may sound like a conspiracy theory, but I'm not one prone to believing wild, outlandish theories without at least some reasoning to back them up. However, my purpose here isn't to explain my reasoning as to why I believe the media and the government are embroiled in an ever complex, ever conflicting, ever changing dance of producing a State of Fear to inflict upon the masses. My purpose has much more to do with the news as a phenomenon, in and of itself, and how, with the fairly recent introduction of the internet, the nature of the news has taken a drastic change. No longer is the news in the hands of just professional journalists. No. In this day and age, with the widespread dissemination of information available to us via the internet, why... Anyone can report the news! . . . First, allow me to summarize 'The Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics', or SPJ for short. I think that the obvious purpose of this organization can be surmised by its' name alone, but I'll break it down anyway. There are four main principles which define the values of the SPJ. Before I begin, it should be mentioned that professional journalists aren't required to join or pay dues to the SPJ or any type of union or guild. That's an issue in and of itself, but for now, I'll try to keep this summary of the SPJ within reasonable limits, while still providing the broad spectrum of each principle: . . . 1. Seek Truth and Report It. A) A reporter of the news should take responsibility for their work by providing a range of easily accessible sources. The primary tenets of a reporter of the news are to seek truth while avoiding bias, and as so, should be focused on providing the broad human experience of a story. Access to any and all sources should be provided by the journalist, and easily referenced by the consumer. B) A reporter of the news is obligated to provide any necessary context to a reported story which might otherwise be overlooked or left out as unimportant, or for the sake of brevity. The importance of providing relevant context when reporting the news can't be stressed enough. A lack of proper context is probably the most powerful way that an otherwise truthful story can be twisted into an untruth. C) A reporter of the news should welcome and support the civil exchange of viewpoints to encourage meaningful rhetoric. A reporter should never construct a story with the intent to provoke any type of disruptive conflict. D) A reporter of the news should avoid stereotyping. A journalist should never deliberately distort the facts of a story, either in word form or of a visual nature. If visual information is being presented, it should be clearly labeled with pertinent information E) A reporter of the news should NEVER plaigarize. . . . 2. Minimize Harm. A) A reporter of the news should be respectful when reporting news of a controversial nature. The provision of truth should be balanced with compassion, according to the nature and audience of the story. B) A reporter of the news should maintain an awareness of 'ethics vs. the legality' of a truthful story, before publishing it. C) A reporter of the news should take into serious consideration the rights of individuals to their privacy, and the ethical ramifications of purposefully reporting a story which may result in harm, or potential harm to an individual. D) A reporter of the news should consider the long-term effects of a reported story. It's important to try to balance the idealism of truth and wisdom when deciding what to report. . . . 3. Act Independently. A) A reporter of the news should view themselves, first and foremost, as servants of the public. In order to carry out this job, honesty is of vital importance. Reporting the news means reporting the truth while choosing to adhere, above all other influence, to a code of ethics. Ethical thought and behavior should be the guiding tenet of any truthful reporter. B) A reporter of the news should avoid conflicts of interest which threaten independent reporting. These include accepting special treatment, favors, gifts, etc. which might compromise the integrity of the reporter. This also includes any other types external pressure, applied as a means to influence unethical behavior, when covering a story. . . . 4. Be Accountable and Transparent. A) A reporter of the news should be ready to explain the ethics behind their process of reporting. B) A reporter of the news should acknowledge their own mistakes and correct them. C) A reporter of the news should expose any personally observed unethical conduct in journalism. D) A reporter of the news should accept the high standards which are inherent to their job and hold themselves unwaveringly to those high standards. . . . With all of that being said, the question practically begs itself: "Are reporters of the news today adhering to the standards of the SPJ? Are reporters of the news even required to abide by a 'code of ethics' at all? What exactly defines a 'reporter of the news', anyway? Can ANYONE be a reporter of the news, what with the ubiquitous nature of social media? Are there any news sources which can be trusted? If so, which ones? And how do we know that we can trust them?" All of these questions pose a serious problem. What is being addressed here is the fundamental validity of the relationship of trust between those who provide the news, and we, the consumers of the news. The lines have been blurred a lot during the years since the internet established itself. Now, anyone can set up a 'reputable looking web page' and report any kind of news they want. Once again, a question is begged: "What exactly are we looking for when it comes to a reputable news source?" The answer to that question, unfortunately, isn't crystal clear... so instead, for now, let's ask this question: "What exactly are we NOT looking for when it comes to a reputable news source?" . . . That question is a little easier to answer. Personal blogs come to mind, a lot of which use professional web design to create a legitimate looking news platform, but they're almost always run by individuals who aren't journalists... individuals with far more of an agenda, and far less of a regard for ethics. Several popular online 'news sources' today started out simply as personal blogs years ago, but have since ballooned into fairly huge corporations... not that such growth affected their ethical standards. Also, not every disreputable news source today is, or started out as, a private blog - but a lot of them did, back when the internet was just beginning to gain traction. What follows is a list of a few of the more ridiculous online 'news sources', some of which began as personal blogs, but all of which are notorious for their shenanigans as news sources, which we can safely say are commonly NOT ACCURATE, and are often BLATANTLY BIASED. Some of these examples are obviously meant for mere entertainment purposes, such as The Rush Limbaugh Show and the online website, Buzzfeed, but ALL of them can be safely assumed to have produced their own fair shares of hogwash, mostly due to the obvious agendas associated with them: . . . 1. Occupy Democrats - created as a counterpart to the extreme right-wing 'Tea Party' movement, 'Occupy Democrats' is a blatantly biased news source, and has a reputation for delivering 'fake news'. 2. Buzzfeed - a popular pop culture and viral media site, 'Buzzfeeds' relatively recent foray into the realm of mainstream news, what with having hired former political bloggers as 'journalists', has been met with criticism. 'Buzzfeed' has been accused of providing intentionally biased content, deliberately tailored toward a 'left-leaning' audience. 3. The Huffington Post - this left-leaning blog was conceived in 2005 as a direct counter-balance to 'The Drudge Report'. It continues to serve that purpose, dishing up biased news for biased consumers. 4. The Drudge Report - one of the oldest political blogs online, dating back to 1995, 'The Drudge Report' began as a gossip column, if that gives you any impression of the authenticity of it as a legitimate news source. Over the years, 'The Drudge Report' has relied mostly on links to other websites for its' content. Lately 'The Drudge Report' seems to be shifting from a far-right publication to a far-left publication. Hmmm. Sounds like gossip to me. 5. Brietbart - much like 'The Huffington Post', which was originally conceived as 'The Drudge Report' of the Left, 'Brietbart' was conceived as the 'Huffington Post' of the Right. I guess 'Brietbart' had never heard about 'The Drudge Report'? This online, far-right news source is famous for posting conspiracy theories, has been referred to as misogynistic, xenophobic, and racist by liberals and conservatives alike, and is notorious for publishing intentionally misleading stories. It's an online circus of unashamed political elephant manure. 6. InfoWars - where to begin with this behemoth of bullshit? 'InfoWars' is a far-right 'news' site which specializes in conspiracy theories, harassment of victims as a result of publishing fake news stories, discrimination and sexual harassment by the owner, Alex Jones, against his employees, and being banned by virtually every social media platform. If 'Brietbart' is an online circus of unashamed political elephant manure, then 'InfoWars' is just like that... simply replace elephant manure with brontosaurus manure. 7. Social Media - ever since 2016 when Buggs Bunny was elected President of the United States, fake news has gone from an unheard of term to one practically synonymous with 'Facebook' and 'Twitter'. What many may not be aware of is the propaganda which pervades these online social media platforms though, which I'll get into soon. 8. The Rush Limbaugh Show - an ancient, far-right leaning radio show meant for ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY, much like 'The Howard Stern Show'. It amazes me that some die hard Rush supporters actually BELIEVE that Rush Limbaugh actually, himself, BELIEVES the crap he spews over the airwaves every day. The result is a vicious circle of BELIEF, one containing an almost religious fervor among die hard Rush fans. That a radio program meant for entertainment purposes which, by some form of black magic apparently, is received as The Truth by what can nearly be described as a mob mentality of millions of fans comprised of otherwise reasonably intelligent people, simply makes no sense to me! 9. The Blaze - basically just a less popular version of 'The Rush Limbaugh Show', but founded by Glenn Beck. Merely another form of entertainment for viral Republicans who think that an entertainment network, specifically designed with a political demographic in mind, is a genuine reflection of 'political truth', if one can excuse my use of an oxymoron. If that type of thinking were applied to cops and robbers movies, then a bullet wound to the shoulder or the leg, or one which passes straight through the body while missing any vital organs, would be something that you could just 'shrug off'. That ain't real, and neither are these political entertainment programs. 10. Fox News - only one of two mainstream news sources I'll include here, because I just don't feel like repeating myself a dozen times. 'Fox News' has been one of the major, 'reputable' news sources for 25 years. Still, although it's staffed with professional journalists, it's still been accused of operating under the standard of being a 'biased, right-leaning, agenda-based' news source. It's not a good sign for journalistic truth in general, when all of the little indicators in just ONE NETWORK manage to add up to the possibility that deception may be just one technique, in a possible arsenal of manipulative techniques, employed to deliver the news... and from such a prominent news source. And finally... 11. NPR - The Ultimate Website and Radio Program for the Fuel Injected Liberal. The older, more opposite version of 'Fox News'. 'NPR' too has been accused of producing a fair amount of purposeful subterfuge, for the sake of its' well known liberal agenda. . . . A lot has happened over the past 25 years since the internet was brand new and still a novelty. Blogs populate the internet now, regarding a variety of topics, and a lot of them are extremely useful sources of information - such as DIY (do it yourself) projects, all kinds of topically specific news such as science, physics, religion, book clubs, photography, recipes, and product reviews. A lot of them, like my personal blog, merely consist of what basically amounts to a decades' worth of diary entries... records of personal thoughts, observations, situations, amusing anecdotes, etc. Most blogs are just intended as information for public consumption, with no use for an agenda... other than an occasional monetized blog with ads. Most, like mine, go completely unnoticed. However, along with the much more abundant blog of the harmless variety, many other blogs and websites disguise themselves as 'news sources', and in many cases, the authors of these websites are simply NOT professional journalists. While it is not required that a professional journalist should belong to any kind of guild or organization which lays out fundamental ground rules for behavior, there is a 'code of ethics' which most journalists at least attempt to abide by. This is the most common ethical tenet which most journalists agree upon and strive to maintain: The principle of 'limitation of harm', which means that journalists and reporters have a responsibility to not harm others while reporting a story. This is one major difference between professional journalists reporting for 'reputable' news organizations, as opposed to creators and publishers of fringe news sources and fake news creators. That is, people who aren't professional journalists. . . . Here's a handy metaphor I like to use when comparing 'ethical journalism' to 'fake journalism' - The Force. Much like the Light and Dark Sides of The Force, there also exist The Light and The Dark Sides of journalism. I'm not saying that the supposedly 'reputable' news sources at our disposal nowadays, such as FOX, MSNBC, NPR, etc. all have the journalistic equivalent of Jedi Knights doing their reporting, but at least the professional journalists, that is... the ones employed by actual news services, agree to at least abide by a modicum of a code of ethics. On the other hand, we have the Sith Lords of journalism... the ones who blatantly publish 'news' which can't help but to be biased, due the inherent nature of such news. By exaggerating the truth, leaving out essential context, and sometimes just outright lying, while failing to include a single particle of a source or reference, these Sith journalists make their livings outside the realms which include any basic rules of civilized behavior. They are scammers, and nothing more. It's how they make their livings, by popularizing what they are either deceived into believing is the truth, or even worse, posting purposeful lies in order to appeal to a target demographic - and all for the relentless pursuit of the almighty dollar. Put simply, money equals power... and even at the level of making a living, if your living involves wielding the power of information, you will be corrupted over time. Maybe not overnight, but it will happen, more often than not. What these 'unauthorized' news sources are up to is unashamed propaganda. Yup, you heard me right. What used to be a tool of government for controlling the thoughts and beliefs of the masses has now become a tool of the masses for controlling the thoughts and beliefs of the masses. How ironic is that? An obvious example of this type of very simple, almost ubiquitous propaganda that I'm sure we've all experienced online in some form or another, but which is mostly popular on social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter, is the meme. Allow me to explain. . . . Imagine in your head a propaganda poster, like the ones which are pasted on almost every available vertical surface of North Korea - that of a frail, suffering North Korean civilian, cringing in a pile of detritus while protecting an innocent child, with a grinning, sharp toothed soldier poised above, wielding a rifle with a bayonet attached, wearing green combat fatigues embroidered with the Stars and Stripes, and the letters USA boldly printed upon the soldiers' helmet. There will also be a message present, but most of us wouldn't understand a message written in Korean. It's beside the point, though. You can assume that the message has nothing good to say about Americans. Of course, government propaganda is still used worldwide, but I merely use North Korea to demonstrate the absurdity of North Korean propaganda. All of it consists of lies, utilizing a visually impacting illustration which describes The United States as evil incarnate, populated with monster soldiers, with one purpose - to conquer and murder the innocent, peace loving population of the DPRK. Now imagine the common meme, one you'll probably scroll by on Facebook or Twitter. Once again, all of the elements of propaganda are present. The propaganda meme is mostly of a visual nature, has elements of careful graphic design incorporated into it, a typography consisting of an appropriate, boldly printed font which communicates a brief message, with the entire thing constructed with unmistakable intent - to manipulate the thoughts and opinions of others, either by flat out lying, and/or appealing to our emotional and sympathetic natures. These memes are practically EVERYWHERE you look online, and anyone with a modicum of intelligence can recognize them for what they are... pure political propaganda, or propaganda purposed to serve an issue of a controversial nature, such as racial tension. These types of memes are designed with maximum visual impact in mind, in order to communicate in as simple a manner possible, an obviously biased message with no references or sources included. They have two uses, these memes... 1. To preach to the choir. These memes are created in order to intentionally offend anyone holding a different opinion, while stirring up others who agree with the message by adding strength to their numbers. A purpose is served. 2. To appeal to the 'other side'. By employing tactics such as a tragic message accompanied by tragic images, which are chosen to appeal to our empathy, these memes are designed to manipulate the 'other side' by presenting an 'out of context' argument which deliberately ignores and/or suppresses information which contradicts the purpose of the message. Again, sources are almost never included. Why? Because presenting a legitimate source for a piece of propaganda would, in effect, negate the propaganda, exposing it for the misrepresentation of truth that it is. . . . The reason I went to some length here to describe this phenomenon in detail, the common use of deliberate propaganda, not by our government but by WE the population, in the form of memes, is to add a metaphorical exclamation point to the entire purpose of this observation regarding the state of news today - the bias inherent to almost all sources of news, and most importantly, to demonstrate that unless you're reading an article authored by a professional journalist with a modicum of ethics when it comes to reporting the news, that when browsing for news content online, you're more likely than not to find yourself reading an article which is just deliberately false - that is, fake news - or the article you're reading is one that's been deliberately constructed, including just enough truth to seem familiar, thus offering an air of legitimacy, which serves one purpose only... to manipulate your own thoughts and beliefs so that they conform more to the liking of someone else. Make no mistake. Every time you expose yourself to an item of news online, especially one that doesn't bother to employ any fact checking or bother to provide any references, you're likely being exposed to the opinion of a single person with their own agenda... to bring you around to their way of thinking, and ethics and morals be damned. It's the world we live in. If only one piece of useful information can be taken away from everything I've labored to explain here, it's this... Be warned. Guard your thoughts. Don't let yourself be a victim of manipulation. Always question EVERYTHING, especially podunk news articles or self published 'news' sites. Demand sources. Demand references. Demand THE TRUTH! . . . Carry the Fire, and be a light for others.