Reputation in the profession of the press is paramount. If someone who is expected to be the 'eyes and ears' of the public is proven to be fallible by unchecked fact, chances are there will be enquiries into whether or not this is an isolated phenomena. This strain of thought has been highlighted by a recently released exposé (entitled "Starsuckers"), which primarily demonstrates, through documentarian polemic, the fallibility on behalf of certain 'liberal' journalists in their commitment to publishing lesser truths.
Questions are hereby raised in relation to this clear-cut case of a slip in regulation. Could there be a journalistic contagion at work? Is this dip in standard only imitable among reports of a celebrity category? Or, perhaps most apt, can the individual accounts of external affairs, fed through various mediums, be fully trusted at all by the public body? Instances of apathy interfering with the governing of fact, and the publication of that, are dubious practices insofar as the average reader of, say, The Sun (one of the prominent tabloid papers to have their rug pulled out from under them by Chris Atkins and co) may passively agree with such leniency, but the easy process of communication (or gossip to some) can make one hell of a difference on a larger scale.
One concurrent analogy to this intriguing demonstration of improper flouting of the rules is the on-going issue about the MPs expenses scandal, in which our beloved, benevolent bourgeoisie in Parliament were caught red-handed (not unanimously) after misusing provided financial claims. The entitled position of trust and reliability earned or, for the sins of our MPs, bestowed upon these publicly perpetual figures can undoubtedly be tampered with by none other than the risky propensities of the individuals themselves. The apparent clincher in the fears of the journalism industry losing any amount of face in this lies in the potential for public distrust to flourish. Who can blame Joe and Janet Blogs for bearing doubt in light of a blatant journalistic faux pas such as this one?
Nevertheless, the focal point of the controversial Starsuckers documentary is the growing enthralment of the fame society; a culture condoning celebrity binging like gluttonous hogs gorging on swill from the commercial conveyor belt. The insignificance of the arguably cultic celebrity doctrine in modern life is, in comparison to more pressing themes (war, politics, war politics, war, politics), a bog-standard joyride from the comfort of a couch. Dedicated, serious journalists would be wise to avoid becoming embroiled in the hunt for Hollywood happiness - the world needs no more Big Bother.
Still, it may be the case that, in years to come journalists may need to clasp their armour together, hoist up the riding boots and ride lance-first into a maelstrom of public scepticism. Bring on the White Knights of Fleet Street...or just a gaggle of law-torn martyrs with shorthand at the ready.
Questions are hereby raised in relation to this clear-cut case of a slip in regulation. Could there be a journalistic contagion at work? Is this dip in standard only imitable among reports of a celebrity category? Or, perhaps most apt, can the individual accounts of external affairs, fed through various mediums, be fully trusted at all by the public body? Instances of apathy interfering with the governing of fact, and the publication of that, are dubious practices insofar as the average reader of, say, The Sun (one of the prominent tabloid papers to have their rug pulled out from under them by Chris Atkins and co) may passively agree with such leniency, but the easy process of communication (or gossip to some) can make one hell of a difference on a larger scale.
One concurrent analogy to this intriguing demonstration of improper flouting of the rules is the on-going issue about the MPs expenses scandal, in which our beloved, benevolent bourgeoisie in Parliament were caught red-handed (not unanimously) after misusing provided financial claims. The entitled position of trust and reliability earned or, for the sins of our MPs, bestowed upon these publicly perpetual figures can undoubtedly be tampered with by none other than the risky propensities of the individuals themselves. The apparent clincher in the fears of the journalism industry losing any amount of face in this lies in the potential for public distrust to flourish. Who can blame Joe and Janet Blogs for bearing doubt in light of a blatant journalistic faux pas such as this one?
Nevertheless, the focal point of the controversial Starsuckers documentary is the growing enthralment of the fame society; a culture condoning celebrity binging like gluttonous hogs gorging on swill from the commercial conveyor belt. The insignificance of the arguably cultic celebrity doctrine in modern life is, in comparison to more pressing themes (war, politics, war politics, war, politics), a bog-standard joyride from the comfort of a couch. Dedicated, serious journalists would be wise to avoid becoming embroiled in the hunt for Hollywood happiness - the world needs no more Big Bother.
Still, it may be the case that, in years to come journalists may need to clasp their armour together, hoist up the riding boots and ride lance-first into a maelstrom of public scepticism. Bring on the White Knights of Fleet Street...or just a gaggle of law-torn martyrs with shorthand at the ready.
No comments:
Post a Comment