You can choose what to believe. Surrounded by stories, a journalist isn't just looking at one side, they have to look at all sides, including their own. Ethics codes, such as in the NPPA, SPJ, RTNA, ONA and ASME, say a journalist shall not be involved personally and should remain objective in their work. At least that's what's said in their codes of ethics. But do you believe that? Is there such a thing as truth?
We are the media, and the media cares about the peoples' wants. Does that always mean truthful, untainted work? The way I see it, it's all about money. Maybe that's overly cynical. I'd like to believe that all journalists do transparent work, but I know that's not always going to happen. Our industry is so competitive, always trying to get the most viewers, the most readers, the most social media buzz. To thrive is to make money, and making money could mean different things to different journalists. That doesn't mean I agree with it, but that I see media for what it is.
Consumption - Code of Ethics obsolete?
Sometimes, when I read magazines, I feel as though an article was written for the purpose of making money. Is that just limited to magazines? No, of course not. It's pretty scary knowing that "real" journalistic work could be the spawn of an advertisement or conflict of interest. We don't know the journalist behind the work, we don't know what their personal life is like, the desperation of the success or the curiosity that drives them. We don't know what that journalist had to do to get that story published.
That's why I have trouble believing what I read. It can be anywhere, Facebook, CNN, or even Snapchat. Information is being spread at lightning speed, and we have an audience that is consumed by it, and because of knowing that, I understand that the code of ethics has been lacking lately. Our media is digital now, and our audience wants their news and wants it now, and they also want to be interested and awed. Entertained. So it all becomes one big contest for who can get the most reads/views.