#1 ·
I've been wondering—who actually holds journalists accountable? Is there even a real way to check them?
Right now, it feels like any reporter can just launch an attack on whoever they want, regardless of whether they’re actually telling the truth or not.
Honestly, criticizing the media feels like an attack on democracy sometimes—probably because we're still stuck in old ways of thinking. Journalists have basically become untouchable, almost like the Church used to be.
Like, a columnist for the Los Angeles Times can claim that America doesn't need a Secretary of Commerce who grew up in some tiny rural town, but you'll rarely see anyone call out a columnist for, say, barely scraping through middle school with failing grades.
We get to swap out politicians every four years through voting, sure, but journalists? They only get replaced if their boss decides to let them go—and those decisions are usually based on much shadier motives.
Is there any kind of actual safeguard to protect us from bad journalism?
Right now, it feels like any reporter can just launch an attack on whoever they want, regardless of whether they’re actually telling the truth or not.
Honestly, criticizing the media feels like an attack on democracy sometimes—probably because we're still stuck in old ways of thinking. Journalists have basically become untouchable, almost like the Church used to be.
Like, a columnist for the Los Angeles Times can claim that America doesn't need a Secretary of Commerce who grew up in some tiny rural town, but you'll rarely see anyone call out a columnist for, say, barely scraping through middle school with failing grades.
We get to swap out politicians every four years through voting, sure, but journalists? They only get replaced if their boss decides to let them go—and those decisions are usually based on much shadier motives.
Is there any kind of actual safeguard to protect us from bad journalism?