The Future of Journalism... Between Neutrality and -dir-ected Insinuation

The Future of Journalism... Between Neutrality and -dir-ected Insinuation

By Bashar Murshid

Introduction:

Everyone today is wondering about the future of journalism in a world where information is accelerating and media and political agendas are intertwined. Journalism, which has always been a profession of seeking truth, faces a fundamental challenge: Will it remain committed to neutrality and credibility,´-or-will it succumb to -dir-ected insinuations designed to confuse the guest, excite the viewer, and please the media establishment? The dilemma is not merely a tactic in formulating the question-;- it is an ethical and philosophical test that places the journalist at a crossroads between his role as a truth-seeker and his role as an interviewer who uses insinuation as a weapon.

Types of Journalistic Questions:

First: Professional Questions

1. Open-ended questions: Allow the guest to elaborate and clarify.

2. -dir-ect interrogative questions: (Who, What, When, Where, Why, How) to obtain the essentials of the story.

3. Clarifying and follow-up questions: Delve into vague answers.

4. Professional Leading Questions: These reveal hidden details without accusation.

5. Human Questions: These give the story a personal and human dimension.

Second: Leading (Suggestive) Questions:

This type aims to embarrass the guest and shape the audience s opinion. It can be broken down as follows:

1. Leading Questions: These implicitly imply an answer and pressure the guest to acknowledge a specific position.

A general example: "Isn t it true that your decision clearly led to a deterioration in the economic situation?" (Instead of asking about the consequences of the decision in a neutral manner).

2. Denouncing Questions: These confront the guest with contradictions´-or-explicit criticism.

A general example: "How do you justify this action, which critics have described as a step backward, and expect us to believe your intentions?" (Contains a preconceived notion).

3. Hypothetical Besieging Questions: These create scenarios that force the guest to defend themselves.

General example: "If the rumors that the other team was planning a counterattack prove true, what would be the most disastrous option you would take?" (The dialogue is based on negative and unconfirmed assumptions.)

4. Questions designed to set the tone: These aim to demonstrate the journalist s skill and create a dramatic moment, not to reveal the truth.

General example: "Since you admitted in [this year] that you were incapable, what has changed today to make us trust your ability to meet this challenge?" (Focusing on an old weakness to create drama.)

5. Interrupting the interview: This involves asking a new, crucial question during the interviewee s response (without completing their answer), with the aim of confusing and frustrating them and preventing them from presenting a convincing argument to the viewer.

Motives and objectives of each type of question:

Professional questions are primarily aimed at seeking the truth, serving the public, and clarifying reality. They also seek to document events, assume media responsibility, and enhance the credibility of the journalist and the institution they represent.
In contrast, -dir-ected questions seek to embarrass and confuse the guest, create excitement to attract the audience, and sometimes showcase the journalist s skill in front of the camera´-or-the institution, as well as serve the institution s agenda´-or-specific political goals.

Social and Philosophical Danger:

The shift from neutral, professional questions to -dir-ected questions has profound implications. For the public, it leads to a distortion of the truth, the formation of biased awareness, and a loss of trust in information.

For the media institution, it leads to a decline in credibility, transforming it into a factory of sensationalism rather than a platform for knowledge.

For the journalist himself, this slippage leads to a loss of professional conscience and a deterioration in his social and philosophical role as a facilitator of awareness.

On a broader level, this trend threatens the -function- of journalism as the fourth estate, and the media may become a tool for intellectual occupation and the colonization of opinion, where the public is -dir-ected to believe the facts as the journalist´-or-institution wants them to, rather than as they are.

The dilemma is not merely a tactic in the formulation of the question-;- it is an ethical and philosophical issue that affects society as a whole.

Solutions and Ethical Standards:

To counter this slide, ethical and professional control tools must be activated. Here, the role of professional -union-s emerges in formulating morally binding codes of conduct and emphasizing the need for media institutions to adhere to international ethical standards.
This commitment can also be strengthened through international treaties and agreements that guarantee the editorial independence of journalists and provide protection from political´-or-economic pressures and agendas.
Implementing these standards constitutes the first line of defense to ensure that journalism remains a profession that seeks the truth, not a tool to -dir-ect public opinion.

Conclusion:

Ultimately, the future of journalism will remain tied to the ability to maintain neutrality and credibility, despite the increasing temptations of -dir-ected suggestion.
A journalist who adheres to professionalism remains a seeker of truth, a bridge between facts and the public, and a guardian of the trust society has placed in him.
Anyone who turns into an interviewer who uses innuendo as a tactic to confuse a guest´-or-please the establishment is not only harming themselves, but also threatening the role of journalism as the fourth estate, risking transforming the media into a tool for intellectual occupation and cognitive colonization.

The issue transcends material interests´-or-political agendas-;- it is a matter of credibility, social awareness, and independence of thought.

A journalist who loses his´-or-her impartiality not only compromises the facts but also undermines the trust of society, leaving the reader with a clear question: Will the media remain a means of empowering awareness,´-or-will it transform into a machine for shaping reality according to the will of the powerful?

In a world where news is accelerating and misinformation is rife, the search for truth will remain a sacred duty, and the journalist s responsibility, more than ever, is to maintain this balance between covering the facts and protecting the public s intellectual and freedom

Rate the article
Bad	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	Very good
Result : 100%							Participated in the vote : 1