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

I always considered the best of journalism was on display once a week through the pages of the Kings Cross Whisper.
And the difficult task it would be for a journalist , agonising over the choice of “fat girl “ to present for the weeks centre spread.

It’d be all down hill with the closing copy of the Whisper for journalism I feared at the time: Sadly I was correct I believe.

Rhian: If the fact checking was assisted by unbeatable space age lie detection, then it is the answer.

Not for nothing is it writ large, know the truth and the truth will set you free.

There is just one truth and not many versions of it, as some will attest.

Then there's opinion, lies, propaganda, faith-based belief and blind ignorance/superstation.

The witch doctor points the bone and three-four days later, the tribesperson is dead.

Was that person killed by black magic? No, just ignorant superstation and dehydration. As he/she sat and waited to die.

There is but just one almighty irrefutable truth! The very foundation stone of all good repeatable science!
Alan B.

Rhain: I take your very valid points on expert opinion etc. At the end of the day, it's still opine. One would have to take stupid pills to believe otherwise.
Alan B.

My goodness, did the author just write this with a straight face?

"Tucker Carlson's recent interview of Russian President Vladimir Putin was ridiculed by the mainstream media, rather than being seen as important piece of journalism capturing the Russian side of the story."

Leaving aside Carlson is a partisan hack feeding the MAGA fascination with authoritarian strong men, his fawning and utterly softball interview with Putin hardly supported "a reputation for hard headed journalism, which exposed scandals without fear or favour" which the author is seeking.

Keep it just a little bit real please.

Hi SteeleRedux,
I think Carlson was somewhat unprepared and maybe a little bit intimidated by the interview with Putin.
He was wholly unprepared for Putin's take on the last 1000 years of Russian history.
It wasn't his best effort, but he still gave Putin a platform with which to speak to the American people.
- And regardless of what the hysterical western authoritarian leaders who attacked Carlson even prior to the interview say, I think it's extremely important that the world have a chance to know just exactly what Putin thinks.
To say otherwise is an attack on independent journalism.

MAGA supporters are citizens too.
And I think MAGA is not so much a movement in and of itself, but a response to the extreme woke policies of the left.

If the issue is an open border (ludicrous policy) then of course there are going to be many Americans standing against it.
You can't label all MAGA supporters lunatics, when many just want to close the border to thousands of undocumented immigrants moving drugs into the US and creating an epidemic.

I wouldn't be surprised if the CIA has an agreement with the cartels.
It wouldn't be the first time they earned money from drugs.

The whole establishment is corrupt, even Republicans like Mitch McConnel.
They stripped out spending on the southern border but kept spending for the war in Ukraine and Israel.

Dear Armchair Critic,

My issue is with the author conflating Carlson's effort with hard-headed journalism.

You tell me how "somewhat unprepared", "wholly unprepared", and "intimidated" reconcile with being a "hard-headed journalist"? They don't.

In my view it was a Putin puff piece by a 'useful idiot'