Monday, February 27, 2017
How very very
Journalism had nobility once upon a time. That was when a journalist/reporter verified through the means of cross-checking sources; checking the sources on the sources. This is to say, there are stories behind the stories, lending biases here and misunderstandings there, if not outright ill will and lies and rumour. In this respect, journalism was the antithesis of the consumption of information. It was a veritable fast; it was a kind of noble great fast from being satiated by information so as to arrive at the story of veritas behind it all, and then present that story. Journalism is seeking to see through what has only arrived in your lap, and see where it leads, for no other reason than that you care about the truth and that others may know the truth. Immediately publishing something because you "have it from a good source" is neither journalism or reporting. You care not a wit about the truth; otherwise you would restrain yourself and investigate all possible sources. As it is, you are just a passive imbiber of whatever it is you wish to imbibe. Social media is the place where one finds what one wants to find. And that is precisely the problem - for the reader, and a hundred times more for the professed reporter/journalist/newsiteaggregator.
The passive receiving of information on social media has basically replaced the propriety of journalism. This is just as true in the Catholic social media as anywhere else. For some reason the smoke of Satan can enter through the cracks of the church, but somehow we're supposed to believe that Catholic social media is impervious. Not only is it not impervious; it chokes with congestion because it seeks no sources outside of itself. If you make a telephone call to some echelon affiliate who tells you basically nothing more than his own circle of rumour that he's entrenched in, saying to you Pope Francis is "Bad News", well, then, I guess you go with your gut. And go no further. But oh, oh! someone in Argentina said this, and that's, like, you know. And stuff. Not that investigating the Pope is anywhere to begin as an objective criterion. Because really, it's not. One can investigate stories. That is to say, find out the true story behind the one that is presented. But that is actual work. People don't go there. Too busy on the internet.
Like people did when the man in white unadorned raised his right from the balcony and they just knew. They just knew. You're gut is satiated. Say what you want. But you are not a journalist or a reporter who cares about veritas.