Journalism is no longer a “noble profession”. With the exception of old hands who won't be around much longer, people in the job seem to be activists, peddling their own views and ideology or that of their favourite politicians. The younger ones can't write, and don't seem to know the meanings of some words. On air, or on TV, they gabble away at speeds they used in the yard at recess time with their schoolmates.

Some of this is patently factual. One notes the freedom of the press is a two-sided sword. Where opinion pieces/ biased editorials are substituted for validated and fearless reporting.

This is not a problem in Russia, China and dare I say Turkey and anywhere a dictator holds power.

The solution is an independent fact checking organisation that could be part of the UN, the FBI and or Interpol.

They should be equipped with space age and unbeatable lie detection technology.

One notes here the Author appears to be a pro Putin/Trump supporter.
Alan B.

And who will fact-check the fact-checkers Alan B.

Unbeatable space age lie detection will endure the nonaligned fact checkers are kept honest along with FBI/AFP and the like, supervised, biannual integrity tests. Freedom of the press in China, Russia and Turkey is not a problem, it doesn't exist.
Alan B.

Lisa Wilkinson is an example of what's out there these days ! Wokeness in cahoots with stupidity is the scourge of this decade !

There have always been bad journalists and bad newspapers. Poet Humbert Wolfe wrote in the 1930s (I think):

You cannot hope to bribe or twist,
thank God! the British journalist.
But, seeing what the man will do
unbribed, there's no occasion to.

The problem is not the emergence of bad journalism, but the decline of good journalism. There are lots of causes, but one is that the old business model no longer works. Good journalism, particularly investigative journalism, takes lots of time and talent, and therefore money. Few people pay for hard copy newspapers or online subscriptions nowadays when you can access all you need to know for free on the internet in real time. Classified advertising for things such as real estate and jobs vacant was once the main source of newspaper revenue, but now we all look for those things online.
We get what we pay for.
_____

Alan B

I’m not sure an independent fact checking organisation is the answer. Most serious areas of contention are ones where facts can be mustered to support both sides of the argument. Disagreements arise mainly in selecting which “facts” are most significant and how they are interpreted, and these are matters of judgement, not black-and-white.

Many organisations already purport to do fact checking, and while some do a good job, they all have some ideological biases. They do this by picking the “facts” to be checked so the side they disapprove of most often is found to have got its facts wrong; by downplaying the seriousness of factual errors by the side they favour; by using terms such as “misleading” or “partially correct” to imply that factual statements they don't like are dishonest; and by reporting “expert” opinion as “fact” sand selecting the “experts” whose opinions they like.

There is in my view a very real threat to freedom of speech and thought if the government or an agency of its creation becomes the arbiter of “disinformation” with power to control what is published, where, and by whom. Graham wrote a good article on this a few weeks ago.

https://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=22805