Recently, I have detected an attempt from Donald Trump to put journalism in their place after the articles about his life he denotes as fake and false. Is he trying to bring change to the media? Let's analyze it.
It is true that journalism as a whole is not at its best condition and the phenomenon of fake news is one proof of it. The information has grown vast and inevitably the unreliability rules. The question is whether this unreliability is intentional or not. If it is intentional, it is immoral and serves specific interests. If not, then the journalists are victims of their own job.
Journalists survive from writing news. They have to write something even when they don't have a piece to write. Sometimes they have the truth, but other times not. In any case, they have to decide whether to write a piece or not. Since most of the times they are not the witnesses of a particular occurrence, they risk publishing unreliable news, news they cannot confirm themselves. Since they are only observers either directly or indirectly, and not the ones involved, they can only present a limited point of view, which could lead to false impressions. The truth belongs to the experience, not the attempt of third parties to interpret a story, without knowing the exact incidents, but only one or a few facts.
Journalists have power and sometimes they are so flattered by it that they think they can use their power to strike people. This is a misuse of journalism for personal or propaganda purposes. Some journalists, when they begin having success, they cannot realise and discern the right from the wrongdoing. When they start to acquire acceptance and audience, they assume that they can rule the world with everything they are publishing. Even if this pondering process from their part is subconscious. And then, the betrayal of the morality comes, with cruelty and inhumanity.
Most presidents don't care about everything that is written in the press, let alone respond. But Donald Trump sees everything and not only that but he answers to everything through twitter. He hasn't hesitated to attack top league media such as the New York Times and CNN. Initially, I regarded it as naive, unprofessional, even obsessive, but now I reckon that it might be an endeavor of Trump to change journalism and define a new status quo. Even though this may occur unintentionally. If this is true, then Trump has something important to offer to the society, something that everyone has been wishing for a long time now.
Donald Trump has seen the press attribute to him several negative stories. It is understood how bad he feels about that, let alone if these are fake and false news. Trump is now trying to create a more serious profile for himself and help society, regardless from the doubt that is in the air of whether he can or can't. His past opinions may not matter to him anymore. Every human being deserves a chance to change. Even Trump. Even journalists. That is why Trump is paying too much attention to the journalistic presentations. He probably feels that they could pose obstacles to his path and he wants to defend himself. He has his own personality which differentiates him from most politicians. So, it is likely that he is highly misunderstood due to his different behaviour. But he is in the most powerful position and the criticism is intense. Whether it is a fair criticism or not, it is not easily detectable.
According to Neuroscience, the human brain has limited resources and need to interpret visual data quickly; it can't afford to entertain every bizarre interpretation. The mind simply goes for the explanation that seems most likely, based on its past experiences and built-in visual processing machinery. For the most part, though not always, the explanation of the mind comes close enough to reality for all practical purpose. So, people are currently pawns of the media. People cannot know the truth and journalism plays with that, trying to sell and create impressions that serve interests. It is a common secret that some media receive directions in some news, mostly those that have to do with power. Therefore, there is an underlying reason why journalists insist on events they have never seen, and are motivated to preserve, through indications and not the certain truth.
The French Philosopher of the 16th and the 17th Century, Rene Descartes, had said: "If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things." This is the best way for the public to approach whatever it perceives. The only way to resist to deceit. Education and knowledge can help people be more skeptics, but everyone could start by doubting everything and not believing anything. Even the things that seem too obvious or too reliable. I've noticed a tendency to this direction, but I don't know how broad it is. It has to broaden; for humanity's sake. For truth's sake.
For it is better to not believe a truth than to believe a lie, because this defines yourself too. If you believe a lie that has negative effects, it shows you may have malicious intentions. But if you don't believe a truth that has negative effects, then you may be well-disposed. The choice is yours. Above all, be smart and see in depth.