Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Watchdog or Lapdog?
Chapter 10 in the textbook is all about the watchdog aspect of journalism and how it is essential to democracy. The textbook claims- and I agree- that though the public assumes that this is a essential and needed aspect to journalism, it is the least well defined. How do journalists skirt on the line of asking the necessary questions to show exactly what the government is doing and not just be a pack of dogs looking to tear into every public official? Another question that was raised is how do journalists do this watchdog aspect (like the Watergate and Deep Throat affair) without being influenced by money? Whoever owns the newsroom is looking for scandal-generating headlines and money- not necessarily the best journalism. I think that the public needs to not only hold governments accountable, but also their newspapers to ensure that the newspapers lets the journalists do their jobs.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Do we actually care why journalists investigate as long as they do investigate? If we do assume that newsrooms are looking to sell and find eye-catching stories, as long as journalists do the digging and inform the public, then it doesn’t matter what their primary motive was; here, only the end result matters. In such a case, the government, or whoever is under scrutiny, is held accountable; and the media outlet generates revenue because good and relevant stories do sell.
ReplyDeleteThat doesn’t mean the media outlets should be dishonest or let themselves be solely influenced by money, as you suggested it could happen. Simply out, this would constitute bribing and it would generate various prosecutions in a country where we love to sue. But it would also mean that the newspapers are held accountable; not by the public, but by the justice department.