Reading Response 2

I have never considered the conflict of interest that journalists must face when it comes to the loyalty that they have to citizens and how that sometimes may be in direct conflict with the companies that employ them. This is definitely a factor in considering the question: what is "truth?" How many journalists will fight to tell the "truth" when the truth could cost them their job, and in effect: their livelihood?

In the end, I cannot even say that I am surprised that there are people out there who will sacrifice journalistic integrity for the sake of money. I say the same for news companies too. In an age where many believe that newspapers are dying, I don't see many newspapers passing over the chance to make extra revenue from outside sources, even if it means compromising their integrity. Sad, but true.

When I was reading the verification chapter, it would seem that most of this would be common sense to journalists, like being objective and the notions of Do Not Add and Do Not Deceive. Unfortunately, those concepts are not that black and white, and when considering the conflict that comes with the accountability function of journalism, I can see a similar conflict with deceptiveness in journalism that attempt to purport information that is favorable to the private agendas that keep newspapers in business.

It is however nice to know that having an opinion does not mean that you can't be "objective" and it is okay to sometimes be impartial. The book points out many of the published journalists with partisan allegiances who are considered credible, implying that is okay to take a stand as long as you are loyal to your public and you maintain an independence from those that you cover. I personally can very much so appreciate watchdog journalism for reporting information that the public may not have otherwise.