The Hopeful Truth for the Future of Journalism

Kathryn Cook
kc133410@Ohio.edu

Growing up in the footsteps of the parent or guardian who raised you is a familiar act; due to this being so common your parent’s views are passed down to you. Do you have the same views as the person who raised you? And if you don’t, when and how did you form your own opinions? I ask this question because I grew up reading the same magazine for my weekly celebrity gossip and watching the same news station for political news. The article "Moral Reasoning for Journalists" by Steven Knowlton and Bill Reader discuss the past, future and ethics of journalism and put into detail why we have the certain feelings and views we do toward mainstream media.

           

What do I believe?

“Don’t believe what you see in magazines or hear on T.V.” is a saying you have heard often, and it's also a statement I am often guilty of ignoring. You see a million magazine tabloids and breaking news announcements. “Lamar Odom’s Mistress Finally Speaking Out” or “John Edwards Secret Children with His Secret Mistress” are all things that catch your eye, but do you wonder if they are true? So whom do you believe? There is no answer to this question which leads to why it is impossible to believe information you see or hear from mainstream media.  As stated in "Moral Reasoning for Journalists" all celebrities and public figures have "spinmeisters". These spinmeisters dismiss all true and untrue gossip within the public media. Spinmeisters aren’t the biggest fan of journalists because these journalists are making their clients unhappy, which doesn’t make their job easier. Spinmeisters may not like journalists, but journalists hate spinmeisters even more, making all journalists look incredible. The conclusion I have come up with is that a main stream media company's posts will have people who believe it and people who won’t. Pew Research did a recent study focusing on news organizations credibility; take a look to see what stations people consider creditable. 

Battle of the Bias

            

Biased journalism comes out the most with controversial topics, and these controversial topics tend to come up most during election time. As proven below, it's not true that citizens consider certain news media stations biased toward a political party.

Pews Research Center for Excellence in Journalism worked on “Winning the Campaign in 2012." Research was done by director Tom Rosenstiel by watching multiple news stations Facebook pages, Twitters, blogs and news reports throughout the campaign run. Through the research, Rosentiel discovered that Romney on MSNBC is 71 percent negativity and 3 percent positivity. Obama on Fox is 46 percent negativity and 6 percent positivity. Rosentiel’s studied gave proof that political campaigns are negative no matter what station. Rosentiel’s research also shows each candidate got the same negative and positive publicity from most of the major news stations; check it out. 

Planning for the Future

If journalism is getting the reputation of not being credible and stations are being known for being biased in their reporting, what will the future hold? As a college journalism student it can make you nervous knowing so many citizens have such opinions and feelings about your future career. "Moral Reasoning for Journalists" didn’t ease that fear but brought to light how it can be fixed. Utilitarianism and ethical thinking are two points of advice given in Moral Reasoning for Journalists that stuck with me as dominant and important points that can help me tackle the future of journalism confidentially.