Thursday, March 26, 2015
Truth in Journalism
After reading the various articles from The New York Times, what are your thoughts and reactions to the ways in which truth, fact, context, general information and personal experience are expressed and conveyed through journalism? Please refer to specific examples from the articles to illustrate and explain your reactions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Until the United States has created specific regulations in regards to American citizens that would like to fight against ISIS, I don’t think that American citizens should be getting involved in Iraq. However, I also don’t think that the U.S. government has the right to tell people that they are not allowed to fight for what they believe in. In order for American citizens to have this freedom, there must be a system in place. As the article points out, Americans could be held for ransom, which would fall to the U.S. government and could ultimately require the government to negotiate with a terrorist group. If U.S. citizens want to go overseas and fight against ISIS, they must know that they are going at their own risk. Until the U.S. decides how much or how little it wants to intervene with ISIS, it would not be fair for a handful of American citizens to make the decision for the rest of the country by being captured by the terrorist group and forcing America’s involvement. As a side note, I hope that the Americans who want to fight against ISIS are doing it for the right reasons. Joining the forces against ISIS just because a soldier did not see enough action when he or she was formally in Iraq is not a good reason to join the conflict.
ReplyDeleteI agree on this point. While individual citizens do have the right to do as they please, traveling to an active war zone is a very dangerous thing to do without the proper support and they should not do it. These militias have minimal logistical support, minimal command and control, no air support and minimal fire support. When the US military deploys it sets up an extensive network of command and control points, has a large supply network, sets up artillary and mortar fire positions and can rely on air support in order to accomplish the mission and bring the soldiers back safely. Without this network an American soldier would find the differences difficult to deal with. In addition the militias have a different fighting style than the American military, preferring to rush into battle and overwhelm the enemy with rapid attacks. These differences would make it difficult for the American soldier to operate in one of these units and would make it likely that he would be killed or captured. Should an American be captured the US would be forced to respond possibly with a raid by special forces which carries the possibility of American casualties. Finally, it is possible that the US could arrest those who go to Iraq to fight. Under US law a common citizen cannot carry out diplomacy. By fighting with the militias it is possible that that action could be construed as diplomacy and as such be illegal. As for your final point, some soldiers join the military simply because they want to shoot guns and kill people. While I do not have any numbers on this, I know that it happens. For some people they enjoy the adrenaline of being in combat and that is their reason for serving.
DeleteJournalism is often void of personal experience, which encourages us to accept it as fact and truth. However, personal experience is what makes any type of writing more relatable and comprehensible. The article, “The Truth About Wars,” written in the first person by Daniel P. Bolger, a man who has experienced war firsthand, is honest. Although it displays one man’s opinion and is therefore biased, it is not attempting to hide that bias, despite its title. Bolger says at the end of his article, “I’d like to suggest an alternative. Maybe an incomplete and imperfect effort to contain the Islamic State is as good as it gets.” Regardless of whether or not one agrees with him, he expresses his opinions as his own rather than fact.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I found the New York Times “apology” an example of how large corporations attempt to push the blame off of themselves and disperse it among vague sources. Though they accept the responsibility for certain sources going unrevised, they continuously blame others for their misinformation: “It is still possible that chemical or biological weapons will be unearthed in Iraq, but in this case it looks as if we, along with the administration, were taken in.”
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAfter reading the articles I find myself thinking very similar to yourself Elizabeth. In The article, “The Truth About Wars,” Daniel Bolger does make it very clear his bias or opinion on the Iraq war and gives credible evidence and first hand experiences to back up his opinion. What I find interesting about the rest of his argument was that he gave solutions or what he believed to be better ways of managing these scenarios. This is very uncommon, due to the fact that people just want to point fingers at how poorly something was handled instead of giving a viable alternative.
DeleteIn regards to the question: how should scenarios like the one we have in Syria and Iraq be handled? I continually change my mind but have seemed to gain a further understanding of the Iraq war and the current war to say that there is no right way to handle such conflicts. What I think is that today we live in a global community where technology has connected us (American Citizens) to see firsthand what horrors are being committed by ISIS and other terrorist militias. Too see these things and then say “that is not our problem” and leave ourselves out of the situation even though we have the resources to help seems selfish. What I think we have to make sure before we engage in sending troops or allowing US citizens to risk their lives for this international cause is to set clear objectives and try and cooperate with the Iraqi/ Kurdish Government. But who am I to talk about war, I am just some kid sitting behind his laptop.
All in all, I find myself agreeing with the first point presented about Bolger's "The Truth About Wars" and partially disagreeing with the point about the New York Times' apology. "The Truth About Wars" is a clearly biased piece, and it does not claim to be anything but. Bolger uses language in the piece that clearly states his opinion, and that tints the piece with his disdain for the way that the United States handled the invasion of Iraq. He uses words such as "squandered," "botched," and "vicious" to describe the war, and makes his opinion-- that the United States made a complete mess of the Iraq war-- immediately clear. While I agree that the New York Times does not accept full blame for the factual inaccuracies presented in the article by blaming faulty sources, etc. I do not think that they are attempting to disperse the blame, and I found that their apology was, in the end, quite sincere. Even though I picked up on some language in the piece that was reminiscent of the apology letter to the Chinese in the Hessler piece, I found that the way the New York Times ended the apology, by saying, "We fully intend to continue aggressive reporting aimed at setting the record straight" to acknowledge the fact that they messed up and to show that they are dedicated to fixing their mistakes.
Delete“Unsettled at Home, Veterans Volunteer to Fight ISIS,” provides probably the least bias out of the three articles that we read. The author is not showing a personal or tainted opinion; they are merely reporting facts—which are backed up by relevant sources (in this case veterans who have returned home). I think this form of journalism is the most “accurate”, yet only truly works when the story is a simple ad fairly one-sided. Conflicts and events often are more bias, because personal experience will always interfere with the piece of journalism. Depending where a journalist has been raised or what they have been taught, they will always show some kind of preference, whether intentional or not. This is not to say that bias is always a bad thing, in fact, it allows for different view points to be expressed and shared and often give way to more genuine and passionate pieces of writing, rather than a fact based piece. I think it is important to remember that bias will always be present in more complex journalism, yet I think this should be encouraged rather than condemned.
ReplyDeleteEach of these articles employs specific tactics to inform the reader of the journalist's personal opinion. Although "Unsettled at Home, Veteran Volunteer to Fight ISIS" was more fact-driven than the two other articles, its prose manipulated several quotations to the author's favor. Only relevant, supporting segments were included, and the article failed to acknowledge the opposing side. For instance, Mr. Maxwell is quoting saying "I may not be enlisted anymore, but I'm still a warrior," which highlights his honorable drive (which is what the article drives home), but fails to consider the fact there's a reason he's no longer enlisted and could potentially be unfit for warfare. In "The Truth About the Wars," the author provides bias by talking in first person plural to describe large, diverse groups of people. For example, although Bolger is a veteran, he cannot speak for all veterans truthfully. This writing flaw is also applied to the greater U.S. community in the article. Finally, "The Time and Iraq" fails to include sufficient quotations. The article is far too opinion-infused for such few quotes. Additionally, "should" is used to freely, for it clearly identifies the author's own outlook. By using "should," the author creates a right and wrong side to every issue, which is incredibly biased journalism.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"The Truth About the Wars" really showed a personal narrative and opinion about the Wars in the Middle East. Bolger opens his article very personally mentioning that he lost 80 soldiers under his command. This article clearly shows a bias towards the war, but Bolger disagrees with the way the war was handled. He has a strong opinion that there be U.S involvement in the Middle East, but it is important to remember how much he has sacrificed. Also when reading this article it is important to remember that it is mostly in the first person. He is clearly voicing his opinion, rather than Phlipps who expresses some of his opinions as facts. It is always difficult to read news articles with criticism because people want to believe that they are being told the truth.
ReplyDeleteThe article "The Times and Iraq" showed incredible bias towards defending themselves. They continuously site examples of when they messed up reporting and did not take full blame for their actions. The articles were interesting to read, and I found that when looking for an articles biases it really changes a persons opinion about the meaning and reliability of the article.
All of the articles are biased. "Unsettled at Home, Veterans Volunteer to Fight ISIS" seems to take a more objective approach, as it is the only article that is not written in the first person. But the author still provides bias through the quotations that he chooses to include and exclude. By including Patrick Maxwell's and Matthew VanDyke's quotations, both of whom have similar opinions and values, the author fails to give the reader a contrasting point of view. However, this article is the least biased out of the three because there is no underlying indication as to where the author himself takes a stance on the issue. We do not know whether the author supports veterans that want to fight against ISIS or whether he supports the U.S. government's decision to keep Americans out of the fight.
ReplyDeleteIn "The Truth About Wars", we gain a contrasting opinion of a senior commander who has been disillusioned by war. This exposed me to a different viewpoint and therefore allowed me to formulate my own opinion on the matter. I agree with Kat--the biases in different journal articles are necessary for us as readers to gain a varied range of perspectives. More perspectives allow for a broader picture.
Truth is one of the major but also largest subjects in philosophy. The concept of truth has been at the centre of discussions ever since the neo-classical philosophers asked that very simple question “what do you mean by truth?” A very simple question indeed which, nevertheless, created a major turning point in the history of philosophy of course but also in other fields like for instance journalism. So how can facts be separated from opinion in journalism? Is it even possible?
ReplyDeleteThe first article from the New York Times titled “The Truth About the Wars” is very interesting when studying this matter of separation between general facts and personal experience. This article is clearly affected by the author’s personal experiences as “a senior commander in Iraq and Afghanistan”. Therefore, is he reliable? It is hard to decide because his article is obviously biased by his past. However, I also appreciate reading an article about war written by someone who actually knows about the subject and not a freshly graduated intern who never saw anything else than New York City. The second article called “Unsettled at Home, Veterans Volunteer to Fight ISIS” also gets back to this idea that it is of course a biased article due to the subject’s personal experiences. However, unlike the first article, this one is written by an actual journalist who reports the words of the soldiers. That should reduce the potential biases as he could choose the right information to use in order to create that balance between the general facts and the opinion. In fact, I thought that the journalists did a pretty good job in this article as the combination of objective and subjective thoughts gives us, the readers, a greater opportunity to build our own.
Concerning the Times’ apology, I am still perplex on if it was fair or not to attack the newspaper for its publications and to be honest I really don’t know. Of course the newspaper should always give an accurate description of what is happening but information can get hard to get, especially in war contexts where it is censured and manipulated. And, as mentioned in the apology, correcting and adding stronger information to a previous publication “is how news coverage normally unfolds”.
In class, Ms. Devine brought up the idea concerning the myth of the truth of journalism; despite any attempt made to be objective about a topic, bias is inevitable and will always taint the quality and verity of a journalist’s writing. One characteristic of journalism in particular that contributes heavily to this subjective outlook is the necessity to make bold and confident claims in order to have your article read. I question the intentions of contemporary journalism. On the NYT article “The Times and Iraq,” the editors promised to pursue “aggressive reporting aimed at setting the record straight.” But I don’t think that’s necessarily the case. If that was truly their intent, then their wouldn’t be countless newspapers – the New York Times, the Boston Globe, you name it – competing against one another to publish the most popular article on the same topics. Writing has been commoditized such that journalists as described in the “The Times and Iraq,” are “too intent on rushing scoops into the paper” and have no regard for disseminating the truth – in the form of concrete facts – to the public. If the purpose of journalism is truly to be objective – and I am not claiming that it is – then writers should attempt to lessen the severity of their biases by admitting their uncertainty in their arguments and proving that certain issues – in the case of these articles, whether or not soldiers should be fighting in the war against terror – will never be as clear-cut as we wish for them to be.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the various articles from The New York Times, I think that whether a journalist decides to or should implement their own personal opinion or thought depends on the article itself. For instance, in the first article I believe it is completely necessary for Daniel P. Bolger to write his own personal opinion in his article, “The Truth About the Wars.” Bolger writes, “As a veteran, and a general who learned hard lessons in two lost campaigns, I’d like to suggest an alternative.” Being a veteran and experiencing war first hand I believe it would be stupid to not want to hear Bolger’s opinion on the matter. Bolger goes on to write, “Perhaps the best we can or should do is to keep it busy, “degrade” its forces, harry them or kill them, and seek the long game at the lowest possible cost.” Due to Bolger’s insight and experience I think it is logical for him to reveal his personal opinion and feeling.
ReplyDeleteHowever, in the second article titled, “Unsettled at Home, Veterans Volunteer to Fight ISIS,” by Dave Philipps there is no reason for a personal opinion. The reason Dave Philipps does not give his personal opinion is because frankly there is no need for it! Philips writes this article about Veterans who have already or plan on going back to Iraq to fight ISIS. Philipps writes, “Mr. Maxwell is one of a small number of Americans- many of them former members of the military- who have volunteered in recent months to take up arms against the militants in Iraq and Styria.” Do to Philipps topic and overall story it wouldn’t have been smart or necessary if he told us his personal feeling on the matter.
Overall, I believe for a journalist to implement his or her own personal feelings into a piece, it must be for good reason.