Friday, 2 December 2016

One of the great red-pill moments on my road to awakening was someone posting about the National Union of Journalists Guidelines on Race Reporting (link). Suddenly, the reasons for the systematic dishonesty of reporting on Muslims, brown-skinned people and Europeans opposed to mass immigration became clear. A hidden conspiracy was revealed.

Since then, I have continued to look for evidence of similar journalistic conspiracies in countries throughout European civilisation. Here is an article that describes a similar "code of practice" for Austrian journalists.
The Press Council has put together a "checklist" to serve as a guide to the media when reporting on the topic of refugees. This is discussed "emotionally and controversially" in the population but also in the media. The list is intended to enable "self-reflection" but also to offer a "practical orientation aid", according to the self-monitoring body of the press. 
The basis for this was formed by consultations of three senates of the press council on "how to report responsibly about refugees and asylum seekers". The basis for the decisions of the press council, which has been occupied for months with this topic, continues to be the Code of Professional Conduct for the Austrian press. 
The press council's checklist ("Responsible journalism when reporting about refugees") readss: 
Would I also report about wrongful behaviour if had not been committed by a foreigner/asylum seeker/migrant? 
Have I adequately researched my topic, do my sources go beyond mere (internet) rumours? 
Have I presented the facts that are required for a comprehensive and balanced reporting of my topic? 
Have I checked whether my reporting/my choice of words/my selection of photos could strengthen prejudices? 
Have I checked whether information that could stir up prejudices could be left out, without changing the meaning and truth content of the story or impairing the understanding of the readers? 
Have I checked whether specific information thwarts other intentions (e.g. not mentioning a person's origin, but mentioning a name that sounds foreign)? 
Note: merely mentioning the origin of a (suspected) criminal foreigner/asylum seeker/migrant is not an ethical infringement according to the current practice of the press council senate. However, in specific cases, journalists should weigh up whether mentioning origin is required for the reader's understanding. 
Have I considered whether comeone could be hurt or insulted by my reporting/my choice of words/my photo selection? 
Am I clear about the intentions my information provider/research sources are pursuing? 
Can I open an internet forum on the topic without having to fear that the discussion gets out of hand? 
Am I sure that I don't have any non-journalistic motives for wanting to take up this topic?
Source

1 comments:

  1. Esas técnicas son para inducir al profesional de la comunicación a autocensurarse, debido a las negligencias preexistentes de los propios politicos. Son aspectos más relacionados con la seguridad ( o militar ) que para un simple periodista alternativo ( porque la mayoría de las empresas de comunicación en Occidente son sionistas o dirigidas por La Masonería ) que a penas llega final de mes con su sueldo.

    En esos casos, no seguir las recomendaciones e informar de lo que perciba, testigos o testimonios, pruebas de todo tipo y maneras, indagar, y siempre mucho cuidado al buscar la noticia y también a la hora de tratar la información ( acaso con seudónimos u apodos personales ) ocultando la propia identidad del que informa. Esto último es muy recomendable y legítimo, además de autorizado.

    En realidad no es el caso de Austria, ocurre en muchos lugares de Occidente.

    Muchas gracias Diversity, gran labor de investigación compartida.

    ReplyDelete