I have found someone who appears to view the world in the context of current journalism from a similar perspective that I do, and who I think ought to given more credibility than I on that subject.
On August 10 The Canadian Journalism Project Blog published an interview with Michael Hlinka titled ‘More than five questions for Michael Hlinka’ – reading time 5 minutes. Mr. Hlinka is an instructor at The University of Toronto’s School of Continuing Educations. He also reports on business issues for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s Metro Morning Show.
As you well know if you regularly read my morning e-mails, I frequently have said many times to look for and eliminate the ‘sensationalism’ in article and Internet commentary headlines, think critically about the biases writers bring to those articles and headlines, and think about the content from 10,000 feet when developing you own macro-economic and financial markets views.
The referenced interview deals with Mr. Hlinka’s view on (my words) the efficacy of journalism generally. Much of the focus of the Mr. Hlinka’s remarks is aimed at journalist reporting on political, economic and financial market events and conditions – the very topics that I believe ought to be top of mind to investors and traders.
While Mr. Hinka’s remarks focus on journalism in the context of newspaper articles, from my perspective his views also not only are relevant to ‘Internet Journalism’, but critically important to ‘Internet Commentaries’, many (if not the majority) of which are:
- not subjected to editorial review; and,
- importantly in my opinion, often written by persons with what I think are obvious biases.
As ‘Internet Journalism’ becomes ever more prevalent, I believe there is an ever increasing requirement for those who read Internet Blogs and other Commentaries to diligently self-enforce their own continuous ‘Reader Beware’ rule to that reading and thinking activity.
In summary, Mr. Hlinka’s views on ‘journalism efficacy’ in order of importance as I read and interpret them are, that where there are exceptions to generalities, broadly:
- many (if not the majority of) articles are written in circumstances where the journalists writing them have their own agendas and biases, and where those agendas and biases may be influenced by a ‘don’t bite the hand that feeds you’ philosophy;
- there is an element of “intellectual sloppiness” (Mr. Hlinka’s words) in the work of many journalists;
- readers can’t always count on editorial review to eliminate content inconsistencies or accuracy; and,
- in result, current political and business journalism often leads to ‘reader confusion’ rather than ‘reader clarity’ (a condensed version of what I believe Mr. Hlinka said).
Mr. Hlinka intersperses his views on a number of political issues with his views on ‘journalism efficacy’. While I don’t agree with all of what Mr. Hlinka says on the U.S. political front, I do agree with a good deal of it. That said, I consider my disagreements with him irrelevant to this commentary, and so haven’t added them.
If you have read my biography, you know I spent my adult life as a business valuation consultant, and only began writing ‘Internet Commentary’ three years ago. From a credibility perspective it is one thing for me to comment on the efficacy of journalist reporting in these e-mails. It is quite another to read much of the same views expressed by someone who has a business background, and currently is an academic and radio commentator more familiar with media and media reporting than I am.
I strongly recommend you take the time to read the referenced interview, form your own views on Mr. Hinka’s remarks, and include what you take from those remarks in your ‘Reader Beware’ mantra going forward.
You might also want to read an article published today titled ‘Fair and balanced after all? The bias of the US press’ written by two academics, Riccardo Puglisi, an economics professor at the University of Pavia, and James Snyder, a professor of Government at Harvard University – reading time 10 minutes. The Puglisi/Snyder article begins with the following short executive summary:
“Is the US media biased? According to a controversial new book, it is – and, perhaps surprisingly, to the left. This column takes a different analytical approach and argues that the press is actually much closer to the average voter’s sentiments than we might think. Might all these claims that the media is biased in one direction or the other be adding a whole new set of distortions?”
If you read enough of my commentaries on this subject, and interview reports and articles such as these two, you might begin to wonder whether you ought to believe anything you read or hear from media sources. I don’t believe that is a sensible conclusion. Rather I think that one needs to simply approach media (including Internet) releases with a very cynical eye and ear, and use their own background, experience, intellect, and most important commons sense and instinct as they ‘think for themselves’ and reach their own conclusions. Simply put, as I see things all I am saying about media releases in my e-mails, and all that is being referenced about what others have said in this particular commentary, is that as an investor or trader you need to ‘be on notice’ and that ‘to be forewarned is to be forearmed’.
Visit Stock Research Portal for free stock market data, analysis, and research on over 1,600 Mining, Oil and Gas Companies listed on the Toronto and Venture Exchanges. See our Legal Disclaimer.
Possibly Related Posts:
