Investigative journalism?

[Stronk Serb]

What are your opinions on this phenomena, on journalists finding out about illegal actions done by certain company or government and then going public? I support them, unlike the tabloid ones who fling shit around, these people write about the stuff that matters. The agency I follow pretty much has exposed many cases of corruption.

[Judean Zealot]

I'm very strongly in favour of these fellows. The government has to be held accountable for any and all corruption that goes on there.

[Living For Love]

Exposing corruption cases is obviously a really good thing, but I have to admit journalists (and the media in general) have way too much power nowadays and are often biased against certain political stances.

[Hyper]

Exposing corruption cases is obviously a really good thing, but I have to admit journalists (and the media in general) have way too much power nowadays and are often biased against certain political stances.

Where in does the medias power lie? I'm asking because some strongly disagree that the media has too much power, some say the media has massively lost its power of influence with the rise of the internet and the masses of ''small auditoriums'' (this basically refers to the vast number of information channels and the increasing amount that people are viewing)

As for investigative journalism, who in their right mind would be against it? I just wish we had more of it in my country, barely any ever.

[Living For Love]

Where in does the medias power lie? I'm asking because some strongly disagree that the media has too much power, some say the media has massively lost its power of influence with the rise of the internet and the masses of ''small auditoriums'' (this basically refers to the vast number of information channels and the increasing amount that people are viewing)
Television networks have also adapted to modern technologies and not only share their information through TV channels but also through social media (Twitter, etc.) and internet in general, since it is a more immediate way to make information accessible to people.

What I meant with media having lots of power was the way media shapes people's opinions. You may correctly argue that no one should let someone or something else define their own opinions or points of view regarding a certain topic or subject. The problem is that there is absolutely no control over the information media shares with their viewers or readers. Basically, journalists have too much freedom. When you have the ability to share with a huge number of people a certain idea, or a certain perspective, you immediately acquire an extremely powerful tool that can control all those people that get access to that information. That power grows even larger when you work with a renowned television network. I believe media is a lobby that has to be controlled somehow to prevent certain ideas (that only benefit a handful of people) to be shared publicly.

[West Coast Sheriff]

I think they are important and mostly good.

My problems come when a whole organization gets in trouble for something a few people did and when there isn't certainty that the organization is too blame. Media can be dangerous after all

However, in most cases, investigative journalism is a good and much needed thing, especially in today's world

[Hyper]

Television networks have also adapted to modern technologies and not only share their information through TV channels but also through social media (Twitter, etc.) and internet in general, since it is a more immediate way to make information accessible to people.

What I meant with media having lots of power was the way media shapes people's opinions. You may correctly argue that no one should let someone or something else define their own opinions or points of view regarding a certain topic or subject. The problem is that there is absolutely no control over the information media shares with their viewers or readers. Basically, journalists have too much freedom. When you have the ability to share with a huge number of people a certain idea, or a certain perspective, you immediately acquire an extremely powerful tool that can control all those people that get access to that information. That power grows even larger when you work with a renowned television network. I believe media is a lobby that has to be controlled somehow to prevent certain ideas (that only benefit a handful of people) to be shared publicly.

Controlled by who and based on what principles/rules?

Also my original quote elludes to your response, many involved in media and teaching it + others argue that big media has losts its power because they aren't as widely viewed as they were in the past, I sense I'll have to dig up some quotes and research to back this up if I want to continue this.

But I saw an interesting line developing here potentially so :P

[Chapperz16]

I am fully against investigative journalism.

[Living For Love]

Controlled by who and based on what principles/rules?
Controlled by an independent institution and based on the principles/rules that citizens should have the right to have access to authentic and certified information, free from advocacy journalism, opinion journalism and biased reporting, and independent from any political/religious/social/economic stance or perspective.

[Porpoise101]

I like investigative journalists because they put themselves in danger for the good of all. But you have to be somewhat skeptical because you see more and more fakes nowadays unfortunately. I think that in general with media and information, quality, purpose, origin, and the content needs to be examined thoroughly to see how insightful or good it is.

[mahony0509]

Journalists here have been killed for doing this. The gangs in this country are very, very provocative and dangerous, yet journalists here still do it. Recently, after the Dublin hotel shooting which was on worldwide media, journalists have been threatened and put under Garda protection. I am mostly for it, although I do believe it should be done anonymously, due to the risks.

[Stronk Serb]

I am fully against investigative journalism.

Why?

I like investigative journalists because they put themselves in danger for the good of all. But you have to be somewhat skeptical because you see more and more fakes nowadays unfortunately. I think that in general with media and information, quality, purpose, origin, and the content needs to be examined thoroughly to see how insightful or good it is.

The agency I like here has its facts right. They went all the way to get official papers confirming our mayor in corruption charges by owning a coastal residence. They also went into detail about him privatizing a public company to his father. These guys are very thorough.

[Microcosm]

It's one way that the people check the government. I support it.

[sqishy]

I'm fully with this, basically.

[Falcons_11]

I am fully in favor of it when it exposes wrong-doings and corruption. Recently in my former hometown, it was the media investigative journalists who found out about corruption by high government elected officials, most notable the mayor and counselor officials. They turned this information over to the federal attorneys and FBI. The federal government was successfully prosecuted and now are spending their days in a federal penitentiary. In the same state 10 years ago the federal government prosecuted a former governor. He spent 8 years in a federal pen. But, regretfully, that doesn't deter others in high office from committing crimes thinking they can outwit the law and get away with their ill-gotten goods.

[Judean Zealot]

Journalists here have been killed for doing this. The gangs in this country are very, very provocative and dangerous, yet journalists here still do it. Recently, after the Dublin hotel shooting which was on worldwide media, journalists have been threatened and put under Garda protection. I am mostly for it, although I do believe it should be done anonymously, due to the risks.

The problem with doing it anonymously is that anybody can stir up shit whenever they feel like it, without being accountable for what they say.

[mahony0509]

The problem with doing it anonymously is that anybody can stir up shit whenever they feel like it, without being accountable for what they say.

Isn't that what tabloids do anyway??

[Hyper]

Isn't that what tabloids do anyway??

Except tabloids aren't anonymous or unaccountable.

Also generally speaking anyone with a few grains of salt and intelligence doesn't take tabloids seriously at all.

I don't think anonymity would be a problem if the author would cite their sources... Obviously that becomes a problem if the sources are people.

[lliam]

What are your opinions on this phenomena, on journalists finding out about illegal actions done by certain company or government and then going public?



imo that's the raison d'être of journalism to do so.