It's difficult for any given piece of information to be objectively presented at any given time. We certainly don't want a "truth police" as then our understanding would be entirely subject to whatever that institution wanted us to believe. The best we can do is drive the system, as a whole, towards an objective understanding, and ensure that people have the ability to evaluate the quality of information.

It's difficult for any given piece of information to be objectively presented at any given time. We certainly don't want a "truth police" as then our understanding would be entirely subject to whatever that institution wanted us to believe. The best we can do is drive the system, as a whole, towards an objective understanding, and ensure that people have the ability to evaluate the quality of information.

This is an interesting topic and discussion. The Danish king Valdemar II wanted a law to build the country. The law was published in 1241 as «The Law of Jutland». It was written by the Bishop Gunnar of Viborg. In the first page of this law he presents three quality criterias for assessing a good law (assessing the truth?). A good law is recognizable for whom it concerns, it works in real life and it benefits longterm. Plato in the book Laws II presents the same assessment criterias more than a thousand years earlier. I have tested these in several research projects for assessing quality. Could this be a possible starting point to assessing quality of »truth» in accordance with your question? Dariusz Prokopowicz Daniel Goldman

I think that while reality itself may be universal and objective, our ability to describe it is not. How we evaluate evidence is almost entirely dependent on our cultural understanding of reality. Interestingly, I was having this discussion just a few days ago. Now, perhaps one could say that we could use science, and to an extent, I might accept that, but there are tons of things which are totally undecided, scientifically speaking.

But I suppose if we're going to use science at all, it should be in informing people how to evaluate information for themselves, not for policing the media. I am not a fan of the prospect, although it's fine to have "factchecking" organizations that simply try to evaluate the quality of what the media is producing.

Daniel Goldman I am a big fan of people (as you say) having tools to evaluate quality of information. Also the tools need to be intuitively easy to accept and use. This is the great thing about the quality assessement tools of Plato and Bishop Gunnar of Viborg (who had probably read Plato). They are down to the fundamentals. Platon reflects over this because he is worried about the education of the young people. Bad truth can destroy the relations between people. We don’t need thought police but people who can think for themselves. This requires thinking tools.

any media that has the ability to communicate and move information from one point to another and its purpose is to communicate is located in the realm of communication technology . thus , information and communication technologies are so intertwined that it is very difficult to separate them . in fact , both are pursuing a common goal that is spreading information among people . human achievements in the current inventions and innovations continually evolve and add the scope of information and communication technologies .

Contrary to some perceptions , the media are not in contrast to public and national security , but are complementary and the most important factor in strengthening public and national security . In order to prevent any threat , national and public security , more than anything else We need the strengthening of the media , because national and public security depends above all on the expansion and development of social trust and the media are the most important factor in creating and developing confidence . Therefore , the mass media play the role of culture , education , information , and security , in particular public and national security , and social participation , and so on , whose reinforcement will be the basis for the development of national and public security .

Remember that there really is no "The Media." There is no huge, homogeneous entity that controls everything. There are individual people and organizations that communicate with constituents via electronic channels, but each has its own ethics, morality, agenda, purpose and way of doing things. It is a mistake to think of "The Media" as a single thing.

Of course, I did not say that the media is everything, but I said that the media are a factor in strengthening security. With various functions they can have in order to strengthen national security. This is your very pessimistic view that the media is nothing and ...!

Dear Friends and Colleagues of RG

In recent years, the influence of social media portals on general public opinion has been growing in many countries. Therefore, there is a growing risk of deliberate use of social media portals by specific organizations, large companies or national governments as an instrument for shaping general public opinion. In connection with the above, the issue of objectivity of information in the media may be modified by the use of social media portals as an instrument for shaping general public opinion.

Best wishes

Can any of you give an example of a fully objective, independent opinion-forming, public opinion media?

Please reply

I invite you to the discussion

Thank you very much

Best wishes

I remember a time when objectivity was an agreed-upon ethic of journalism in America.

Also accuracy. Even on television. Do you remember Walter Cronkite?

In my opinion, fully objective media (in terms of information policy, description of the current reality) are only possible in a subjective assessment (from the point of view of a specific person).

Do you agree with my opinion?

Thank you very much and best regards,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

I didn't assume media is almost everything, and When I said media is a component in management integrates. They may have different roles to improve national security. That really is the cynical view of the media not being something.

Dear Abrar Hossain Tasin, Thank you for participating in the discussion. Very interesting considerations. A very inspiring and interesting answer. A very correct remark in terms of content.

Best wishes,

Have a nice day,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

Media objectives represent the most important goals of brand message dissemination, and they are the concrete steps to accomplish marketing objectives.

Dear G. Stephen,

Yes, promoting the company's brand, related to the promotion of the company's logo, the company's mission and the offer of products and services are important elements of long-term marketing strategies implemented in specific media. recently mainly in new internet media.

Best regards,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

Objectivity in the media is mainly an ethical issue as David B. Sachsman already mentioned. It is difficult to understand why such professionals like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Cronkite are running out of fashion.

In my humble opinion, the ill tendency to provide even the greatest bias as a fact or even truth mirrors an educational problem: ‚sex sells better‘.

The objectivity of the information, regardless of the media that carries it, is very rare.

Anyway, who could control the objectivity (or not) of the continuous flow of information?

That is the question.

Yes, a high level of media objectivity doesn't happen often. A higher level of objectivity occurs with high differentiation and independence of the media, in a situation of high competition on the media market. The development of new Internet media, including social media portals, can increase competitiveness on the media market. The development of new online media may also influence the objectivity of information appearing in the media.

Best wishes,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

I agree - communication these days is about attracting attention and readers.