What professions are ok to denigrate?

[JediBonas]

45 years in the business here. Irritates me because often the offending "media" are some guy with a blog or a Twitter, Facebook or Instagram page that have no training and have never worked in Journalism.

This is the one that REALLY angers me. I have a degree in journalism and while I'm not directly in that field (I'm in marketing) for some reason I take those attacks sooo personally. We are trained to be unbiased. Are there some that show bias, yes, but to degrade media as this big bad and discredit them when they are trying, for the most part, to give people information is infuriating.

 

[FlightlessDuck]

Oh, wait, I got a perfect one:

psychics.

 

[okeydokey]

Oh, wait, I got a perfect one:

psychics.

Did you ever see John Oliver's show on Psychics. It's worth a watch.

 

[AppleDumpling]

None
There are people in every profession that give the profession a bad name, whether the profession is lawyer, accountant or plumber. However the vast majority of people in any profession are hard working and honest.

This. IMO, it’s unfair to paint everyone in a given occupation with a broad brush. Rather each person should be judged individually based on their character. I can respect anyone who does an honest day’s work with integrity. It is only those who are dishonest and/or intentionally harm or take advantage of people that I have problems with. Like scammers. Or obviously any criminals- murderers, thieves, child abusers, etc.

 

[nkereina]

I work for a global corporation. I used to work for one of our competitors - an even bigger global corporation. With my last employer I was promoted many times - they eventually wanted me to become a global auditor. There is not doubt looking back that they were grooming me for the job - putting me in positions for a few years leading up to the auditor offer where I could learn and impact specific parts of the organization in a way that prepared me for this job. When it became clear that this is really what they wanted me to do for them, I moved to my current employer. I took a pay cut to make the move and it was the right choice for me.

Auditors are treated (at best) like outsiders and I wanted nothing to do with that. It's not the employees that make it so - it is what they are required to do. I imagine it is like wanting to be a police officer and getting assigned to internal affairs.

Good analogy, definitely outsiders. I'm not complaining about it, but in thinking about careers that get flack from other people - auditing is definitely one that gets it from both ends, internally and externally!

 

[kaytieeldr]

Have telemarketers been mentioned? I understand many people have an issue with them.

Telemarketing? No, not yet. Telemarketers are just people doing a job. You may not like the/any field, but unless you personally know a nasty person or persons in a detested field, maybe we all could stop denigrating individuals?

Somebody's race or religion is part of who they are not what they become.

A person could changectheir religion (and undestand all the good or bad that comes with it. Unless you're Michael Jackson or Rachel Dolezal, changing religion not so much.

 

[Darklord77]

This is the one that REALLY angers me. I have a degree in journalism and while I'm not directly in that field (I'm in marketing) for some reason I take those attacks sooo personally. We are trained to be unbiased. Are there some that show bias, yes, but to degrade media as this big bad and discredit them when they are trying, for the most part, to give people information is infuriating.

Unbiased journalism does not exist anymore for the most part. 24 hour news networks consists of 21 hours worth of opinion shows. Once you start reporting on the story you wish you had and not the story that is actually in front of you, you have lost all credibility.

 

[Bianca and Bernard]

Now I am a racist.

Not at all...
now, depending on where one went to college.....



IMO...it's not the profession one should have problems with (except, as some PP have said...Mimes and Clowns are just...no)
It's the bad people in those professions. There are thousands of amazing police officers out there, but they are overshadowed by the bad. Same with lawyers, judges, IRS workers, etc.

Also, you can have a problem with the profession rules, like with debt collectors. The way they often do their trade, that is something most people have a problem with, and so they talk poorly of these people. IRS is another set of people often misaligned. People hate paying taxes, the rules are often incomprehensible, and they will take your last penny if you owe them; but most of the people working there are just regular people, following a set of rules set by their employer.

 

[Hikergirl]

Give me a break. This "enemy of the people" crap about journalists began with one screaming baby who didn't like the truths that were written about them. Before the last few years, journalists were held in high regard by most people who use their brains. My brother is an award-winning journalist and I'm sick and tired of hearing this bunk about them.

Relax not everything is about you know who.
Have you looked at what passes for journalism these days? If your brother is an award winning journalist good for him, but you are kidding yourself if you think most of them are.

 

[Bianca and Bernard]

Oh, wait, I got a perfect one:

psychics.

Every time a commercial would come on about calling....who was that? Cleo? I would tell my husband that if she knew, she would either pop on the screen and go "call me now B&B" or she would pick up the phone and call me. As you can guess, neither ever happened.

 

[Darklord77]

Relax not everything is about you know who.
Have you looked at what passes for journalism these days? If your brother is an award winning journalist good for him, but you are kidding yourself if you think most of them are.

And even award-winning journalist have reported on non-truths. Do you remember a certain story reported on by Dan Rather in 2004? That false story nearly costs a political candidate an election. I won't go into the most recent hoax story being propped up by journalist since 2017.

 

[NYCgrrl]

And even award-winning journalist have reported on non-truths. Do you remember a certain story reported on by Dan Rather in 2004? That false story nearly costs a political candidate an election. I won't go into the most recent hoax story being propped up by journalist since 2017.

I think you should since I'm clueless of what you speak.
There is credible journalism ongoing in this country and throughout the world but as always it requires people to unlock their brains and put some effort into the acquisition of current knowledge.
Many people are proud to say they get their primary news from FB feeds, and other social media outlets; tabloids and televised opinion makers. I find the practice pretty sad.

 

[Hikergirl]

I think you should since I'm clueless of what you speak.
There is credible journalism ongoing in this country and throughout the world but as always it requires people to unlock their brains and put some effort into the acquisition of current knowledge.
Many people are proud to say they get their primary news from FB feeds, and other social media outlets; tabloids and televised opinion makers. I find the practice pretty sad.

Totally agree with the bolded, and when I speak of what passes as journalism I'm talking about the writers who do nothing more than post some Twitter post and the responses and write a "news article" using that as their information. Unfortunately that is consider actual journalism in today's world and that is a far cry from the days when journalists dug in deep and researched a story and wrote about it.

I'm not touching the journalistic biases that are out there. Most of us can admit it's there on both sides. If one doesn't see it there is nothing one can say that will open their eyes to it anyway.

 

[spiders]

I think you should since I'm clueless of what you speak.
There is credible journalism ongoing in this country and throughout the world but as always it requires people to unlock their brains and put some effort into the acquisition of current knowledge.
Many people are proud to say they get their primary news from FB feeds, and other social media outlets; tabloids and televised opinion makers. I find the practice pretty sad.

They're all opinionated. That isn't an attack on journalists but that's human nature. I personally feel they should all just say, when talking about political issues, who they are voting for and then leave it at that. Knowingly or unknowingly, your tone and speech will change when reporting an issue that you have an opinion on.

 

[MillauFr]

I understand sensationalism has always existed within the profession. Hello, National Enquirer! It's funny because that was my mom's "favorite rag" to read and it drove my brother crazy.

I think part of the problem is that 30 years ago there was a clearer line between the sensational publications and real news publications. Back then I thing the vast majority of people realized the periodicals you saw for sale at the supermarket checkout line were garbage. Now days the lines have been blurred so severely that people have no clue what they are watching or reading is complete garbage.

 

[MillauFr]

They're all opinionated.

I couldn't disagree more strongly. There is a huge difference between the garbage like the National Inquirer and hard news sites like Reuters and AP.

https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/?v=402f03a963ba

 

[Heather07438]

Manipulation in the press is nothing new. It's the natural order of things. There are always different sides to issues and publishers know the power they wield. Why would they build a case for their adversaries when it's just as easy to ***** foot around it, especially when that makes their audience more loyal. Even in a format like Wiki it is hard to stay perfectly unbiased.

I've never been extremist either way politically but now becoming extremist middle if there is such a thing. What ideas do we have in common? Start from there. It's gotten to the point people just assume what others think because of perceived affiliation. We no longer have a healthy balance of ideas, we have dysfunctional polarization often railroading over each other's progress. It's a mistake not to see how other national interests are stoking our fires. The more we care about an issue, the harder we should try to understand all points of consideration. Nobody and no group is right is 100% of the time, not even close.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I couldn't disagree more strongly. There is a huge difference between the garbage like the National Inquirer and hard news sites like Reuters and AP.

https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/?v=402f03a963ba

I wouldn't define it as hard news sites. Hard news sites have bias too. The two you mention according to media bias fact check have a high level of accurate reporting and are considered least bias though both just ever so minimally lean a teensy bit off center (really minimally though).

Other sites such as Washington Post, NY Times, CNN, LA Times, etc (just trying to think about well-known ones) all have bias that are not in the center, some have high factual ratings but are seen to use specific wording to elicit specific responses and emotions. Some have mixed factual rating with specific words used to elicit responses and emotions.

This isn't to say ones mentioned aren't good sources or ones with good journalists working for them capable of writing articles, it does however mean that just because something is considered a hard news site does not mean it doesn't have a bias. There aren't many that are considered centered. I think the best thing for one to do is review their source for potential bias, for factual reporting rating and for usage of wording or phrasing or even imagery so that one can know these things while reading. These all, most of the time without our conscious knowledge, affect how we absorb information.

 

[sam_gordon]

They're all opinionated. That isn't an attack on journalists but that's human nature. I personally feel they should all just say, when talking about political issues, who they are voting for and then leave it at that. Knowingly or unknowingly, your tone and speech will change when reporting an issue that you have an opinion on.

I bet if you watched local news & newspapers (where the majority of journalists work), the amount of bias presented in stories is pretty small.

 

[FlightlessDuck]

There is credible journalism ongoing in this country and throughout the world but as always it requires people to unlock their brains and put some effort into the acquisition of current knowledge.

The Atlantic is fantastic, as an example.

NPR

BBC World News

There is a lot of great journalism out there. People shouldn't focus on 24/7 news channels only. They report news, but they also have to fill all of their programming with news. It's like morning TV x8. The Today Show can't possibly have 4 hours of great content every day, right? How can we expect CNN or FoxNews to have 24 hours of great news programming, every day? You are going to get nonsense, you are going to get opinions, some of them dumb. You are going to get sensationalism and editorial and talking points and buzzwords. It's a shame, really. But even on those channels, all the great stuff goes unnoticed because everybody focuses on the stuff they hate.