Watchdog Journalism

Q/ How can you tell when a politician is lying?
A/ His lips move.

   Changes in the information media now call for a new breed of journalistic watchdogs.
   Time was, newshounds sniffed out stories that corporate moguls and government officials didn't want people to know. It was journalism's duty to expose important information to public view, fulfilling the public's right to know.
   At the same time, journalists filtered the blustery rantings of politicians and passed on only those news items that had value -- a decision made by journalists, and not by those who wanted only their own propaganda to be publicized.
   But times have changed. Politicians now can bypass reporters and communicate directly to the public through social media, using Twitter, Facebook and other channels to transmit their messages, unfiltered, to loyal supporters as well as general readers alike.
   Politicians of the new breed praise the social media as a way to spread their messages directly and instantly to millions. But this also enables them to avoid the fact-checking and opinion-balancing role of traditional news outlets.
   It's like having your own broadcast station without the bother of licensing, editing or revenue to cover operating expenses, or of having to follow any traditional rules about balanced news coverage.
   Time was, journalists were able to check for fact, balance the politician's message with opposing views and trim the excess verbiage.
   Now, with unfiltered, undocumented, unbalanced and perhaps untrue 140-character tirades going out instantly to millions, it's time for a new set of responsibilities, both for journalists and for members of the general public.
   Journalists will be playing catch-up as never before, and no longer have the time to consider alternate voices and check for factual accuracies as they once did, so they will have be more prepared, anticipating what a politician might say and having background information always at hand.
   Secondly, the public must be more suspicious than ever of political rantings.
   It has come to a point where many in the public choose to believe a politician rather than a daily newspaper, especially when the politician regularly attacks the news media and accuses reporters of lying.
   But given the choice of believing a politician or a daily newspaper, which would you choose?
   Journalism may have lost some of its credibility because of the constant attack by popular celebrity-conscious politicians, as well as through its own sometimes faulty reporting. It's time to get it back.
   After all, there's nothing riding on that but freedom and democracy.
   Think about it.