Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Gbill7's avatar

For most of my life, the mark of a good journalist was that he was factual. Not spewing his opinions, or skewing the data to fit his views, but FACTUAL. Somewhere around twenty-five years ago, the collage journalism curriculums shifted to being about “advocacy”. Maybe the young idealists thought they were doing good to advocate instead of report, but the long-term result has been the destruction of media credibility. If all readers know that a writer is spinning the data to fit an agenda, why should we turn to that writer when we are looking for reliable information on which to form our own opinions? If I want to read an opinion, I turn to the “opinions” section of the newspaper. Today’s media has lost their credibility as REPORTERS.

If I want facts, I turn to Peter Nayland Kust, and daily bless him for being factual. Thank you, again, Peter!

No posts

Ready for more?