In "Who Broke the News?" Alan Rusbridger talks about the flawed news industry in the United Kingdom. Rusbridger talks about the rise of "fake news" and public distrust in News, as well as restrictions on investigative journalism. Rusbridger brings light to problems with the news through personal stories and highlights the fact that he feels that it is unfair that journalists cannot report on problems within their own field without the threat of arrest.
The central idea of Rusbridger’s article is how the nature of journalism and news has changed since his career first started. Rusbridger writes about Gillespie, the chief reporter when he worked at CEN, and an important lesson Gillespie taught him. According to Gillespie, “We [the journalists] own the printing pressed; they [the police officers] didn’t.” Gillespie hammered the idea that police officers don’t have control of the media into Rusbridger. Another important lesson Rusbridger learned as a journalist was that not every journalist had the same interpretation of journalism. He realized this after he had an encounter with a persistent journalist that threatened to write fake news about his relationship with another woman
.Rusbridger started to realize that news industries were dying when his colleague, Nick Davies, was investigating the unchecked power of the press. As Davies’s editor, Rusbridger was threatened by many of the publishers and editors on Fleet Street. The more Davies investigated, the more criminal activity he discovered. Thousands of people had their phone hacked by several reporters. After Davies’s article was published, the Guardian was vindicated and scorned by the Murdoch organization. Rusbridger was brought before a parliamentary committee to justify journalism. Some of the conservatives there, wanted to see him in jail. Rusbridger was shocked when MP Keith Vaz asked him if he loved Britain. However, Rusbridger was able to recover by saying that he felt a free press should be allowed to report on corruption. Rusbridger goes on to talk about the public interest. He says that “if journalists cannot agree on a common idea of the public interest,... then it complicates the defence of what [they] do.”
I believe that journalists should be able to report on whatever they want as long as it is truthful, and I believe that corruption should also be reported. As part of the public, I’d want to know if the journalists are breaching other people’s privacy.
I believe that reporters should be able to report corruption but there is a line that has to be drawn. If a king was stealing money for example than that should be reported as soon as it's found out. However, if the king was sleeping with a mistress than only the queen should know about that and if she wants it to go public than that's her business. we already have laws in the United States that you can't record someone without consent from the person being recorded. Although a lot of people break this law, it's breaking has helped many cases and saved lives. These rules were put in place without thinking of the justifiable causes to record someone's actions but that doesn't mean it didn't have good intentions. the freedom of press should be limited but by how much is a gray area that could almost never be found.
ReplyDelete