Journalism - Part Two

How have you responded to part one in this series?

If you have not responded, why have you not done so?

Perhaps you believed your response was not required.

Perhaps you are worried about invasions of your privacy.

If you are a journalist, what are you seeking to know about Civility Today, and why?

How do you think about patrons in relation to journalists, journalism, the news media, libraries, archives, research institutes, and other cultural entities?

How do you think about freedom in relation to the pursuit of truth?

How do you think about civility in relation to the pursuit of truth through journalism?

Much journalism involves interviews of one sort or another.  It also involves seeking interviews.

The French word jour means day. 

Perhaps you do not usually associate journalism with your usual daily practices.

The French word journal means daily. 

Perhaps you maintain a daily diary or daybook or logbook or register or blog or vlog or microblog or protest.

Perhaps you regard public interest journalism as a form of protest, even if that journalism does not provide public reports on a daily basis.

Mainstream, tabloidian journalism is a highly competitive pursuit, in much the same way as politics-as-usual and other sports.


What sort of freedom do you have now, and how do you know?

What do you regard as the qualities of good journalists?

Good journalism involves discovering and reporting scandalous truths with minimal resources.

Everything besides journalism is either science, history, entertainment or deception.

Real freedom involves investing in social research, particularly towards the continuity of civility in a democracy, and the improvement of it.

What do you know about activism in relation to journalism, and in relation to democracy?

Perhaps you are an advocacy journalist running out of patience with hypocritical politicians.

What is the best way to address hypocrisy?

Is it possible to do so with civility?

Perhaps you are a member of an advocacy group running out of patience with hypocritical politicians.

Advocacy may or may not be associated with propaganda.

Civility is never associated with the distortion of truth, whether through loaded language, sensationalist slogans, hideous headlines or grotesque images.  It never deliberately misleads. 

Perhaps you are part of a social movement promoting civility, real philanthropy and enlightened statecraft.

How do you identify the good, if not through empathy, enlightened reason, enlightened self-interest and enlightening information?

How do you identify the bad?

How do you know when statecraft is inadequately enlightened?

How do you know when activism is inadequately enlightened?

You may be aware that investing in trustworthy collaborations requires the acknowledgement of shared meanings, shared values and mutually compatible intentions.

Good journalism relies upon the practices of good journalists, not the devotees of journalese.

You may be aware that conservation is an expression of civility.

Perhaps you have not thought particularly deeply about the connection between maintaining good manners and conserving natural and cultural heritage.

How carefully are you investing in conservation, and how do you know?

Interpreting meanings appropriately often involves an awareness of history, especially changes in language use, errors in translation, and errors in printing or transcription.

What is your preferred approach to investing in historical accuracy, and why?

What is your preferred approach to investing in interpersonal accuracy in the present, and why?

How do you think about evidence in relation to language?

How do you think about evidence in relation to numbers?

Perhaps you mainly associate numbers with economics.

What is your preferred approach to investing time in experiencing services?

What is your preferred approach to investing time in providing services?

Perhaps you do not usually regard journalism as a service.

How do you know your preferred principles provide an adequate foundation for the ethical culture you attempt to uphold, personally, socially, environmentally, economically and politically?  

You have been provided with the opportunity to experience the initial, daily level of Civility Today, free of charge.

This opportunity is provided to you through the philanthropic practices.

Perhaps you regard this experience as a form of training.

 

 

How do you attempt to encourage journalists to communicate with more civility? 

How do you attempt to encourage other people to communicate with civility?

How have you been encouraging quality editing, including news editing, as a reflection of civility and concern?

What do you know about hygiene and how to improve it? 

Perhaps you are already investing in useful inventions to improve the civility of cultures.

What do you know about civility now?

What do you know about journalism now?

What do you know about mental hygiene?

What have been your most significant contributions to public interest journalism?

What have you discovered about the civility and rudeness of journalists in relation to the public interest?

How do you assess the meaning of progress in the darkness of a declining democracy? 

How are you contributing to the prevention of that decline and possibly to a reversal of the danger?

How do you define authentic civility if not through the expression of universal empathy and the dignity of advanced democracy?

How do you define universal empathy?

If you are currently investing in magnificent maturity, what exactly does that investment support, and how?

Perhaps you mainly associate investments with money.

Perhaps you mainly associate support with the provision of money.

But what is necessary support?

Quality journalism supports the improvement of societies.

How do you attempt to gain knowledge about the world? 

What is your usually approach to reporting upon the knowledge you gain?

What is your acquaintance with public interest journalism?

Perhaps you believe you lack the intellect to contribute to public interest journalism, particularly regarding controversial or scandalous matter.

Perhaps you have a tendency to define problems in terms of the amount of money spent, or likely to be spent, in resolving them.  Yet that is merely a way to ignore the problem.

Accurate reporting always requires accurate definitions.

How do you prefer to define civility and incivility, and why?

How do you currently define public interest journalism?


 

What is your approach to comparing one location with another?

What is your approach to comparing one culture with another?

Reporting in the public interest is never expresses through journalese, except satirically.  It may be expressed through literary qualities, whether poetically or otherwise.

But no reporting, regardless of quality, is effective if very few people, and no people of influence, take notice.

What is needed, therefore, is effective distribution.

As the abysmal quality of most news media has given rise to the atrocious consumption of fake news as truth, and conspiracy theories as evidence, there is an urgent need to educate the public on the limits of reasonableness, including the limits of civility.

Yet reasonableness, particularly evidence-based reasonableness, requires a considerable investment of time in the identification of important facts.

What are the facts about your citizenship, and how did you acquire them?

How do you compare national citizenship with rational citizenship?

Public interest journalism is mainly an expression of philanthropy.  It is resource-intensive.  It requires considerable time, energy, conscientiousness and dedication.  It may even require a considerable amount of money.  It also requires sufficient knowledge of legal limitations.



Perhaps you prefer to direct your attention towards pleasant diversions rather than stress-inducing responsibilities.

But why is the acquisition and distribution of truth so stressful for many people?

Why do so many people acquire and distribute misinformation?

Why are the tellers of truth, whether they are quality journalists, quality academics, quality whistleblowers or quality activists, so often denigrated by abusers of power?

Why is violence, and other abusiveness, reported upon with outrageous insensitivity more often than not?

And why is aggression so often prominent in expressions of apparent entertainment?

Aggression is not normal, yet it is commonly reported prominently in news 'stories' in emotive language.

The outrage is intentionally encouraged by that editorial stance, yet the 'consumers' of news either remain powerless or they become aggressive themselves.  They do not know how else to respond.

Corrupt politicians constantly attempt to hide the truth.

Quality journalists constantly attempt to uncover the truth.

Protesting against corruption appropriately is necessary.

Corrupt politicians ignore the needs of the relatively powerless.

Corrupt politicians undermine democracy.

Perhaps you mainly regard yourself as a patron of pleasant politics through your support of public interest journalism.

 

 

Perhaps you prefer to address societal problems through comedy rather than journalism or politics, possibly for reasons of safety.

Perhaps you mainly regard yourself as a satirist rather than a journalist.

How will you assess the effectiveness of your offerings over the weeks and months ahead, regardless of the methods you prefer?



How will you assess the civility of your communications, and other people's communications?

How will you document your experiences?

How will you decide whether particular facts should become public knowledge?

How will you decide when and where to publish the facts?

 

 

You are probably reading today's edition of Civility Today from the library of Frugality Cottage, even if you believe you are looking at it from another location.  

All the daily editions so far published have only been available to the ordinary public through the virtual cottage library.

How do you wish to show your appreciation for your access to Civility Today?

The cottage library may close to you soon unless you are properly registered as a patron of enlightenment.

Perhaps you do not usually associate journalism with enlightenment.

Perhaps you mostly associate comedy, humour, satire and science with enlightenment.

The most well structured political organisations in Australia have been seeking to structure themselves into a landslide-winning federal coalition of astonishing quality.

They are the Civility Party, the Mozarty Party, the Really Quite Pleasant Australian Political Organisation and the Great Australian Sausage Sizzle and Sensible Policy Party (GASSSPP).

They are seeking to dismantle the current, highly corrupt power structure associated with the oil, gas, coal and iron law of oligarchy.  

Most members of the astonishing quality coalition have formed a non-corrupt preference deal.  They prefer vegan democracy sausages, preferably with plenty of organic Australian onions, sufficient Australian organic olive oil, home baked sourdough rolls and homemade tomato sauce, preferably served with a nice cup of Australian-grown tea or a glass of 100% Australian organic fruit juice, possibly with properly funded public services included so that a side-hustle sausage sizzle will no longer be necessary for poverty-stricken primary schools.

That is the entire extent of the astonishing quality coalition's preference dealing, as it should be.  The members are not cheaters or cheetahs.

Are you an expert on the ethics relating to funding of any sort?

A well structured assessment of organisations and individuals is obviously a very good idea, especially if you are an academic, a journalist, a voter and/or a spy.

Scandalously insensitive comments are common, whether by journalists or politicians or entertainers of various descriptions, or even by people in positions of influence within religious organisations.

What have you contributed towards addressing scandals? 

How do you use satire to improve quality of life and prevent corruption?

If you regard yourself as a quality satirists, when have journalists sought to interview you, and for what reasons?

Perhaps you are regarded, through the media, as being some sort of leader, whether you are a satirist or another type of communicator.

Acquiring the most relevant knowledge for the improvement of your leadership will probably take time.  It will require you to make that time.  It will require you to encourage other people to do the same, on a continuing basis, through a lifelong devotion to necessary learning and highly serious reasonableness.

Yet acquiring knowledge can also be fun.  It should be purposeful and interesting and enlightening and may possibly even be serendipitous, ridiculous and hilarious.

The knowledge acquired can be communicated empathically through whichever means are most suitable for your creative talents and intellectual interests, whether they include journalism or satire or a scientific report or a protest song or a painting or a speech in front of purported world leaders, and possibly even real ones.

The global Mozarty Party continues to lead the world towards the second Age of Enlightenment while the most domineering political players are wandering in bewilderment and arrogance in the opposite direction.

Perhaps suitable candidates will flood the Mozary Party with offers of assistance quite soon, all over the world, at least if they can pull themselves and their fellow voters out of the cesspit of politics-as-usual and.or the storm drain of journalism-as-usual.

Comments

Post a Comment