Paper Example on Journalism as One of the Major Components of Communication

Traditional and current world of journalism are very different in so many aspects. The current society tends to rely so much on media as the primary source of information. The writing by Orson Scott tries to dispute the current position of the media by questioning whether it is dead or alive. The position taken in this case is as a result of the findings that contradict the prior information recorded on the papers. The recordings later on influenced even the political sphere and the minds of the people leading to blame games on the corrupt individuals (Eksterowicz, 2000). The primary concern here pertains the canons of journalists, the ethics that guides all the media personnel and continues by questioning the reason why the media people have become partisan instead of sitting on the fence as long as their coverage conveys only the truth. This paper critically responds to Orson Scott's letter by covering all the aspects of media especially ethics in consideration to the demands of the current generation and influence of politics in various professions and other socio-economic aspects of life (Brown, 1995).

If this sample essay on"Paper Example on Journalism as One of the Major Components of Communication" doesn’t help,
our writers will!

Trust an expert

Following the article by Orson Scott, a lot should be outlined and noted pertaining the position of the current society and field of journalism. Politics and media are tied together and cannot be separated. American people are largely dependent on newspapers and online sources of seeking information. For a particular leader to be known and become famous very first, they must associate with the media people to capture the peoples attention as first as possible. This is what the Democrats did. They ensured that they made use of media to twist the minds of the citizens so as to favor the democrats and not republicans. In reality canons of journalism argues against this as it dwells on truth and accuracy. Though Mr. Scott is right, it should not be taken for granted as this is something which is personal. Individual journalists are also citizens with rights, freedoms, and interests and at the same time are free to air their opinions to the public at their disposal. What happened here was, the writer who fooled the public with lies was in a state of internal struggle. The question was, should I hold the truth and see my party lose or write lies and end in victory? This is philosophical, and it is what separates patriots and nationalists from the party warlords.

The second aspect is the fact that, journalism should be human and thats one area I totally agree with Scott. According to Rosenstiel (2013), humanity is a principle in journalism as well as media law and must, therefore, be integrated into all aspects of communication. The information gathered and aired should not be of any harm to the public. In addition to this, in the case of any wrong identified information as affecting people negatively, it should be the work of media to ensure that every citizen of the concerned State is aware. For example, the journalists who recorded the disputed findings might have been aware of what was happenings but never said anything. The original policy of the housing crisis that the Bush administration was trying to stop while Democrats supporting were something that media could have stopped.

The silence and hypocrisy among the journalist are what resulted in the suffering of the unfortunate for the minority. It was so obvious that the outlined risky loans were not going to be paid by the less informed poor people who had a very bitter consequence rated as inhuman. This gives me the authority to support Scott that indeed the journalism profession needs an overhaul; a revolution remains to be done so as some degree of strictness reinforced by severe punishment should follow. It is so obvious that without proper rules and regulation linked to some level of punishment, humans are likely to fail in so many ways and even endangering the lives of others.

Ideally, it is not understandable how the whole industry of media within the United States ended up failing the public. It would be expected that various people besides those accused or politicians would emerge and voice for the voiceless. Does it mean that during the time all the individual leaders in both opposition and government were egocentric or does it mean that the opposition was pushing for this to evil the Bush administration? I do not understand this. In most cases based on experience and observation, media typically tend to unfold occurrences in truth and independence of any political affiliation or financial gain. In what way, did the entire America media failed to recognize this, does it mean that there were pieces of information that could not be joined to come with a complicated information, but the question is why now?

Logically, if the information pointed out by Mr. Scott are real, and that the public has accepted it then, it means that the entire American states and its people are failing. Why am I saying this? Some of the names pointed out stands to be the biggest symbols in the Political sphere of United States. Look at the Democrats, for example, the Likes of Obama are accorded the highest esteem despite the fact that they participated in passing the law that only favored the minority. Where did honesty and patriotism go? This is a clear indication that, it is not only the media world that requires a revolution but also the political sphere. It seems that the current leaders who have been there for a long time act as the mothers of the biggest problems the United States is suffering from, it is them who cultivated and left them growing.

Conceivably, thinking of the accusations of the Bush administration by Nancy Pelosi, is it wise to blame the people for criticizing the Bush administration? Pickard (2011).Citizens are not aware of much that is going on in the government especially matters about the movement of money from one leader to another. This citizen ignorance is the reason if an election occurs; there must be specific elected individuals who have the duty of confirming and ensuring that whatever is happening does not impact their people negatively as they are all there to safeguard the interest of the citizens. All the should rest on the shoulders of media and government. Come to think of it, the party that was in power was the Democratic Party. This weakness implies that the government that is to blame is the previous one headed by Bill Clinton. At the same time, it was the duty of the Bush government to clarify everything to the public and not giving Pelosi an opportunity to tarnish the name of his cabinet. In a similar context, it may not be possible to throw the ball in the court of the citizens and give them the opportunity to trace the shifting of the finances, but they have the mandate of questioning and knowing how their money has been used.

In addition to the clearly identified arguments, there is a need for fairness on the side of the journalists. In this context, all the weaknesses of the Democrats, as well as that of the Republicans about the issue, were to be revealed. This approach is the only way to ensure that all the stories concerning both sides have been captured and therefore the only way to ensure the public achieves more of information (Macgilchrist, 2011). There is also an aspect of accountability. If whole the entire media has failed the public by airing out lies which the public has mastered to be true it is therefore much reasonable for the same media to make apologies to the same public so as to acquire their trust ones again. Accountability here is critical, even Nancy Pelosi should come out and make things rights so as to prevent future occurrences as truth must surely be known, its only a matter of time (McChesney & Pickard, 2011). In a similar note, it may be wise to view this issue in a different perspective and blaming it on the politicians. The promises and threats given to the heads of media and even denial of some rights must have played a better role in hindering the aspect of being accountable and unfolding the events chronologically to the people. An oath of office and agreements by leaders also plays a bigger role in blindfolding the public from being aware of some information

In summary, Journalism as a field is one of the major components of communication. This factor is dependent on so many areas in the society but based on its principles it should be independent and not influenced by economic or any political affiliation (Schaefer & Birkland, 2006). It is necessary to point out that the media are not always aware of what is going on in the government. Their primary sources are the leaders who are the mastermind of lies aired to the people. Contrary to this, the main canon of journalism are; truth and accuracy, independent, fairness and impartiality, accountability and humanity (In McBride & Rosenstiel, 2013). These are just some of the major principles According to my response; its so clear that all these policies have been disregarded, and that explains why Mr. Scott is disputing and questioning the position of Journalists.

It is important for Mr. Scott to understand that a single failure in media does not imply the ruin of everything to prevent a revolution. These are different generations in practice though learning from the older ones with some uniqueness and specialty employed. Nothing is lost so far, given time all is bound to change. The only challenge is why now, why the delay in unveiling the truth because the fact is, follow up in cases are usually made immediately to ensure that those responsible are put into a test (Birkland, 2006). All in all, as a patriot and nationalist, I believe that the current generation is change driven and capable of bringing the light in the media industry without attaching itself to the failures of the past and present partisan leaders.

References.

Brown, W. (1995). John Adams and the American Press: Politics and journalism at the birth of the Republic. Jefferson, NC [u.a.: McFarland.

Eksterowicz, A. J. (2000). Public journalism and political knowledge. Lanham [u.a.: Rowman & Littlefield.

In McBride, K., & Rosenstiel, T. (2013). The new Ethics of Journalism: Principles for the 21st century.

Macgilchrist, F. (2011). Journalism and the political: Discursive tensions in news coverage of Russia. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Pub. Co

McChesney, R. W., & Pickard, V. W. (2011). Will the last reporter please turn out the lights: The collapse of journalism and what can be done to fix it. New York: New Press

Schaefer, T. M., & Birkland, T. A. (2006). Encyclopedia of media and politics. Washington, D.C: CQ Press.