Journalists holding politicians to account

AllForIt

Is this really the role of journalists.

Looking at the unique way Trump conducts his briefings, and I am in no way suggesting I'm defending Trump, but rather commenting on his style rather than substance, I have to say I rather like his combative attitude with journalists.

And the reason I like it is because, let's face it, journalist are as biased as anyone else. We all know that to be the case with media outlets especially newspapers openly admitting what side of the political spectrum they are on, not least to satisfy their readership. Is there such a think as a politically unbiased newspaper btw?

I am not suggesting journalist should not ask difficult questions, yes, that is their job. But the point of asking them is not to hold the politician to account, that is the job of the opposition. Their job is to report the news and the opinions of the politicians, by asking questions to reveal what those opinions are in detail.

The general point being, I rather like the general idea of politicians being more combative with journalist's line of questioning, and yes, even referring to the journalist's political leanings, which is something you rarely see here.

Because I think such would be beneficial i.e. educational to the average viewer that gives a clearer picture of what is going on.

ijohhj

AllForIt wrote: »

Is this really the role of journalists.

Who else is there? Considering politicians are only afraid of bad press?

Opposition is frequently the most effective. Fox is obviously going to throw him softballs.

circadian

I wouldn't call "you're a terrible journalist, you won't make it" as a response to a valid question combatative. I'd liken it more to running scared.

ILoveYourVibes

AllForIt wrote: »

But the point of asking them is not to hold the politician to account, that is the job of the opposition. .

HI RTE ! :pac:

sameoldname

AllForIt wrote: »

I am not suggesting journalist should not ask difficult questions, yes, that is their job. But the point of asking them is not to hold the politician to account, that is the job of the opposition. Their job is to report the news and the opinions of the politicians, by asking questions to reveal what those opinions are in detail.

So basically you want all journalists to act like Laura Kuenssberg? She just spits out whatever the UK government tells her.
Is any of what they say true or not? Apparently it's not her job to know or care it seems.

Tell me how

AllForIt wrote: »

I am not suggesting journalist should not ask difficult questions, yes, that is their job. But the point of asking them is not to hold the politician to account, that is the job of the opposition. Their job is to report the news and the opinions of the politicians, by asking questions to reveal what those opinions are in detail.

Who would you say holds the role of the opposition to the President of the US who is in such a position to to hold them to account?

Chris_Heilong

I think a journalist should just report the news and stick to facts, they should not try to skew anything and they do not have any role in shaping society regardless of what they think themselves, if facts show a politician as being wrong or corrupt fine but do not ask leading questions in order to fit/create a narrative in my Opinion.

AllForIt

Tell me how wrote: »

Who would you say holds the role of the opposition to the President of the US who is in such a position to to hold them to account?

I think you're missing my point somewhat. I'm not clued up the US political system, I know it's not the same as the parliamentary system we have here or in the UK, but I'd imagine it's similar in effect.

I know the president himself does not sit in the Senate or the House of Reps, but they flesh out bills that need passing, and it is there that policies can be questioned openly.

I really don't think that a US president can do whatever he likes without some form of opposition.

AllForIt

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

I think a journalist should just report the news and stick to facts, they should not try to skew anything and they do not have any role in shaping society regardless of what they think themselves, if facts show a politician as being wrong or corrupt fine but do not ask leading questions in order to fit/create a narrative in my Opinion.

Exactly what I'm getting at.

AllForIt

sameoldname wrote: »

So basically you want all journalists to act like Laura Kuenssberg? She just spits out whatever the UK government tells her.
Is any of what they say true or not? Apparently it's not her job to know or care it seems.

But Laura Kuenssberg also questions the opposition. Let a Labour politician make exactly the point you're making, is what I'm saying.

You are proving my point for me.

Tell me how

AllForIt wrote: »

I think you're missing my point somewhat. I'm not clued up the US political system, I know it's not the same as the parliamentary system we have here or in the UK, but I'd imagine it's similar in effect.

I know the president himself does not sit in the Senate or the House of Reps, but they flesh out bills that need passing, and it is there that policies can be questioned openly.

I really don't think that a US president can do whatever he likes without some form of opposition.

There's a major difference between the questions which are asked in a formal manner by opposition than when the media ask questions.
Questions asked in parliament (UK and Ireland) have to be submitted in advance and give the responder an opportunity to prepare their answer.
It is a very important role in government but it does not mean that politicians get a free pass everywhere else.

In your scenario, what would happen if a party got an overwhelming majority in the parliament, questions are asked on a pro-rata basis based on representation and so should there be a smaller opposition, this would mean much more of a free reign for the government.

The media plays a massive role in the performance of a functioning democracy.

sameoldname

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

I think a journalist should just report the news and stick to facts, they should not try to skew anything and they do not have any role in shaping society regardless of what they think themselves, if facts show a politician as being wrong or corrupt fine but do not ask leading questions in order to fit/create a narrative in my Opinion.

But here's the thing. If you want to quote a politician, do you have to include everything that politician said to ensure context is maintained? Because say for example, if a journalist asks a question, the entire answer given could take up half a page of text which practically nobody wants to read because people tend to ramble when they speak off the cuff. So now the journalist has to make a decision on what to quote.

A good one will include anything pertinent answered and also maintain the context of the answer. These tend to work for the reputable outlets that most people don't read.
A bad one will be selective and only quote what works best for their employer even if it doesn't actually construe what the person meant. These tend to work for the majority of news organisations and seem to be the most popular types of news with the public.
Places "like" the Daily Mail "just literally" assemble "quotes" to "push" whatever narrative "they want".

So how do you legally enforce a journalist to report what was meant rather than what the journalist thought they meant? It's not easy.

Tony EH

AllForIt wrote: »

Is this really the role of journalists.

Of course it is. That's their bloody job.

They are supposed to ask questions that test the validity of what a politician is saying, which is quite often riddled with misdirection, half-truths and outright lies.

AllForIt wrote: »

Looking at the unique way Trump conducts his briefings, and I am in no way suggesting I'm defending Trump, but rather commenting on his style rather than substance, I have to say I rather like his combative attitude with journalists.

There's nothing "combative" about it. He's just avoiding the questions, because he hasn't the ability to answer them, or he wants to hide something.

It is, in fact, cowardly.

sameoldname

AllForIt wrote: »

But Laura Kuenssberg also questions the opposition. Let a Labour politician make exactly the point you're making, is what I'm saying.

You are proving my point for me.

She spent the entire time during the Brexit negotiations quoting "anonymous government sources" that was just pure spin being fed to her. Oddly enough she seemed to have no sources inside the EU Commission to provide a counter balance unlike someone like Tony Connolly who seemed to have good sources in both and never reported obvious spin without flagging it as such. Connolly engendered trust with the public, Kuenssberg basically acted like a well paid retweet button.

Richard Hillman

It's the opposition who is tasked with holding those in power to account. They were elected to either form a government or oppose a government.

It's the media's role to report the news in a balanced manner. And there lack there of is seeing their industry fall to pieces. They have being trying to elect their own people for far too long and the backlash is making them redundant.

Tell me how

sameoldname wrote: »

She spent the entire time during the Brexit negotiations quoting "anonymous government sources" that was just pure spin being fed to her. Oddly enough she seemed to have no sources inside the EU Commission to provide a counter balance unlike someone like Tony Connolly who seemed to have good sources in both and never reported obvious spin without flagging it as such. Connolly engendered trust with the public, Kuenssberg basically acted like a well paid retweet button.

Remember when a father challenged Boris in a hospital before the election, she she sent a tweet that he was a Labour activist extremely quickly and without context. I couldn't but read it and think that it was done to protect Boris.

Have followed a lot of her work over recent years but it got to the point over the last 12 months where it was next to impossible to defend her.

Tell me how

Richard Hillman wrote: »

It's the opposition who is tasked with holding those in power to account. They were elected to either form a government or oppose a government.

It's the media's role to report the news in a balanced manner. And there lack there of is seeing their industry fall to pieces. They have being trying to elect their own people for far too long and the backlash is making them redundant.

So who do you think should challenge the President of the US at this time?

sameoldname

Tell me how wrote: »

Remember when a father challenged Boris in a hospital before the election, she she sent a tweet that he was a Labour activist extremely quickly and without context. I couldn't but read it and think that it was done to protect Boris.

Have followed a lot of her work over recent years but it got to the point over the last 12 months where it was next to impossible to defend her.

I think she's quite fond of Boris as a person and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that as long as it doesn't interfere with her job. Unfortunately it appears that it does.

I really think I wouldn't have so much of a problem with her if she worked for someone like The Sun. But she represents so well the lowered standards in the BBC. Now everything seems to be about personalities rather than policies and balance over objective truth. It's depressing.

Richard Hillman

Tell me how wrote: »

So who do you think should challenge the President of the US at this time?

The Senate, the house of representives and governors. The first 2 have been blocking bills. And then it is up to the people come November to decide on the outcome.

Tell me how

Richard Hillman wrote: »

The Senate, the house of representives and governors. The first 2 have been blocking bills. And then it is up to the people come November to decide on the outcome.

So, when either are both houses have a majority, who then challenges him?

The view that the media should not is even more crazy in a 2 party system like exists in the US.

Richard Hillman

Tell me how wrote: »

So, when either are both houses have a majority, who then challenges him?

The view that the media should not is even more crazy in a 2 party system like exists in the US.

The people when election time comes along

Tell me how

Richard Hillman wrote: »

The people when election time comes along

We are all getting to see just how much damage can be done in 4 years.
Media is a massive part in keeping politicians in check. Which is why Trump hates them.

AllForIt

Tell me how wrote: »

There's a major difference between the questions which are asked in a formal manner by opposition than when the media ask questions.

What do you mean? What difference? Different questions? That doesn't make much sense. The style of asking the question has noting to do with it.

Questions asked in parliament (UK and Ireland) have to be submitted in advance and give the responder an opportunity to prepare their answer.
It is a very important role in government but it does not mean that politicians get a free pass everywhere else.

Don't see what difference that makes. If one asks an esoteric question I think it's right that one has time to look into it.

In your scenario, what would happen if a party got an overwhelming majority in the parliament, questions are asked on a pro-rata basis based on representation and so should there be a smaller opposition, this would mean much more of a free reign for the government.

That's nonsense. It only takes one person to ask many question.

The media plays a massive role in the performance of a functioning democracy.

But what role? You can't deny the media shape public opinion.

Tony EH

Richard Hillman wrote: »

It's the opposition who is tasked with holding those in power to account.

No.

The opposition will look for any loophole or angle it can in an effort to discredit the party in power, in an effort to gain power itself and is therefore not to be entirely trusted. The party in power will do the same to the opposition party/parties.

A Journalists job is to hold BOTH those in power and the opposition to account by asking questions of their policy, motivations, statements and whatnot.

Tell me how

AllForIt wrote: »

What do you mean? What difference? Different questions? That doesn't make much sense? The style of asking the question has noting to do with it.

Yes. It does. Answers to questions in parliament are prepared in advance by advisors.

AllForIt wrote: »

Don't see what difference that makes. If one asks an esoteric question I think it's right that one has time to look into it.

Not all questions are esoteric.

AllForIt wrote: »

That's nonsense. It only takes one person to ask many question.
.

Did you watch the HoC during heated discussions on Brexit. It can be like asking a question in a pub when one crowd do not want you to draw attention to something and the majority being in support of the government would mean that their answer would receive rapturous applause irrespective of whether it was true or not. Thus forming public opinion if that was the only way the electorate had to see questions been answered.

AllForIt wrote: »

But what role? You can't deny the media shape public opinion.

Never said they don't. And if they set out to shape public opinion then they are more propagandists than journalists which is a big problem in many areas.
But, they allow for frequent and (to some degree) ad hoc question of elected representatives which allows the electorate to see how they respond when caught on the hop.

Not to mention the work they do in pure journalism such as Carol Cadwalladr did in relation to the Vote Leave campaign which involved politicians who were never put on the spot in Parliament in the same way.

Annasopra

AllForIt wrote: »

Is this really the role of journalists.

I think part of it is yes. A journaliat should be able to question and probe a politician and put an alternative vieepoint forward.

If we didnt have investigative journalism we wouldnt be aware of a huge number of politicsl corruption/scandals; numerous examples in USA, UK, Ireland

Without journalistic probing we never have known about Watergate, about Charlie Haughey or Bertie Ahern or Ray Burke or Michael Lowrys Dodgy finances, about the GUBU affair, about Larry Goodmans doddgy beef transactions etc etc etc

Idbatterim

RTE and the politicians here are a cosy duo. People take their news from RTE without questions. Literally it is the state propaganda piece! In other countries, you will have different views, opinions expressed? here, its absolutely incredible! Leo Varadkar is a boy scout!

Rodin

AllForIt wrote: »

I think you're missing my point somewhat. I'm not clued up the US political system, I know it's not the same as the parliamentary system we have here or in the UK, but I'd imagine it's similar in effect.

I know the president himself does not sit in the Senate or the House of Reps, but they flesh out bills that need passing, and it is there that policies can be questioned openly.

I really don't think that a US president can do whatever he likes without some form of opposition.

Google "triple-lock"

ijohhj

AllForIt wrote: »

That doesn't make much sense.

Imagine making a thread and not wanting any dissenting things said.

storker

AllForIt wrote: »

Is this really the role of journalists.

Yes

Annasopra

AllForIt wrote: »

But Laura Kuenssberg also questions the opposition. Let a Labour politician make exactly the point you're making, is what I'm saying.

You are proving my point for me.

Don't think it does prove your point really. It just proves that there are different styles of journalism.