In most industries, a quality product is easy to identify, thanks to markers like price, brand, and reviews. But in journalism, discerning quality is becoming increasingly complicated, not least because, in the digital age, trusted brands like the BBC or, which can be expected to adhere to long-established journalistic standards, are vastly outnumbered by upstart publications, blogs, and community reports.
The first problem is that there is no clear definition of what constitutes quality journalism, which raises the risk that the standard of “quality”will become a tool of censorship. When Adolf Hitler wanted a book burned, he would assert that it did not meet the “standards” of Nazi ideology. Similarly, a government today could cite quality issues to attack critics’ credibility or to justify denying them journalistic credentials.
Of course, some organizations have a proven track record of following certain procedures to minimise mistakes and respond to errors that do slip through. But these are likely to be the same organisations that already enjoy significant public trust. Whatever trust they have lost in recent years will not be offset by a new label affirming their quality.
Journalism will never be like, say, the airline industry, where strict standards and procedures apply to every action and product. But, until recently, it didn’t need to be: journalists adhered to codes of professional and ethical conduct, and were overseen by bodies that took action in the event of a breach. Doing it right was the default — even though the concept of “right” has always been open to interpretation.
South Africa Latest News, South Africa Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: mailandguardian - 🏆 2. / 92 Read more »
Source: mailandguardian - 🏆 2. / 92 Read more »
Cosatu demands Ramaphosa chide Tito Mboweni over e-tolls social media spatPresidency says social media exchanges are ‘unbecoming’
Source: BDliveSA - 🏆 12. / 63 Read more »
Source: eNCA - 🏆 49. / 51 Read more »
Source: eNCA - 🏆 49. / 51 Read more »
Source: BDliveSA - 🏆 12. / 63 Read more »