Faith, hope and love

 

How do we restore trust in the media? by Matt Waite

Each year Nieman Lab asks some of the smartest people in journalism what they think is coming in the new year. Here is one prediction for 2017. . . Matt Waite, Journalism Professor at the University of Nebraska.

Here’s my prediction for 2017. It’s the safest prediction I could make beyond the sun coming up in the morning. It’s aimed right at the people who run news organizations.

You won’t fix this. Any of this. Not in 2017. Not soon.
You won’t fix trust in news because…
You won’t fix how news gets made because…
You won’t fix how you hire senior leadership to diversify your thinking because…
You won’t fix what stories are selected because…
You won’t change who you hire to do the stories because…
You won’t fix the ways that stories are written to be more transparent and more directly sourced to give people a reason to trust you because…
You won’t fix the lack of training in newsrooms that could retrain reporters to source stories more explicitly because…
You won’t fix the content management systems to require sourcing on stories to be transparent and structured and visible because…
You won’t fix the technology leadership in the company because…
You won’t fix the thinking that makes you believe you’re not a technology company because…
You won’t fix the belief that trust and fake news is Google and Facebook’s problems and not yours because…
You still don’t believe you’re the problem.

Wake me when you do.

 http://www.niemanlab.org/2016/12/the-people-running-the-media-are-the-problem/

Trust in a marriage—what does that mean to you?

"Trust in a marriage." Just what does that phrase mean? This is my list, your mileage will vary.

• Trust with money--one doesn't decide major purchases without consulting the other. Check books and credit cards aren't a battleground. Money isn't about wealth, it's about values, which is why I put it first.
• Trust with communication--no lying, but no unnecessary honesty either, like what was said 10 years ago that hurt, or what you really think of your mother-in-law or her best friend.
• Trust that grievances will be worked out and not cherished and polished like prayer beads.
• Trust that the other isn't "sharing" or "just joking" behind your back, demeaning the marriage relationship instead of lifting it up.
• Trust that the marriage bed is pure and free of outside influences.
• Trust that the marriage vows will be kept, in thought, word and deed.
• Trust that the other can enjoy time with friends and family that may not include the other without jealousy or anxiety.
• Trust that the other will maintain a strong work ethic to support the family.
• Trust that one parent doesn't work against the other in discipline of children (minor or adult), family values, religion.

What would you add?

Decisions about disclosure

The opening paragraph of an essay titled, "Disclosure" by Dr. Rochelle P. Walensky of Boston in the May 5, 2010 issue of JAMA was stunning in the author's lack of understanding her role in protecting the general public and specific individuals from serious disease. Others I'd give a break, but she had an MD and MPH after her name! The paragraph really wasn't essential to the thrust of her topic, which was about being a woman (pregnancy, motherhood) in academic medicine. Here's what she wrote:

"Early in my career, one of my patients with HIV infection, Robin, a recovering heroin addict, had re-enrolled in school and was newly engaged. Her fiance was unaware that she was HIV infected and she would not discuss using condoms, let alone her HIV infection, with him. I encouraged her to confide her infection to her fiance--for the integrity of their relationship and for the value of his health--at each of our clinical encounters. Finally, she did so. He left her. She stopped taking her antiretroviral medications and restarted using heroin. Although the fiance may have reduced his risk of infection, the consequences of my intervention were tragic for my patient. Robin's case reinforced that disclosure is a risky business because the truth can trigger an unexpected, sometimes devastating chain of reactions."

No, it wasn't unfortunate that the fiance left her; it probably saved his life, assuming he wasn't already infected. No, Rochelle Walensky's intervention as a doctor and public health official wasn't tragic--it was probably a requirement of her job! No, Robin didn't start using heroin again because her fiance left her--she was an addict and no one, not even the love of a good man could change her if she wasn't up to the tough behavior needed to kick it. No, stopping the antiretroviral meds wasn't a tragedy because she would just become reinfected as the heroin addiction took over her mind. Part of getting well is a behavior change, chastity and monogamy, something she can't do on drugs. And finally, it's just entirely possible that the fiance left her because he realized she valued his life so little, that he would never again be able to trust her.

The issue is trust

Neo-Neocon says it best: ". . . it appears to be dawning on an increasing number of Americans that President Obama cannot be trusted. There are two reasons for this. The first is that so many of the things he promised during the campaign—transparency, bipartisanship, unity and an end to blaming, a post-racial presidency, no catering to special interests and lobbies, and posting of bills in a timely fashion online, to name just a few—have not only been violated, but have been boldly, flagrantly, and shamelessly violated. The second thing is that his pre-election stance as a moderate is seen to have been a lie as well, and that’s even more basic—at least for the moderates and Independents who gave him the support he required to put him over the top and guarantee his election.

One can talk about this policy of Obama’s or that one, and agree with certain elements of his program and disagree with others. But although these are very important issues, they are not the issue. Trust is."

Should Governor Sanford resign?

Yes. This is a no brainer. He was willing to throw his career and trust away for a sex fling, so why not throw it away for a principle? If he's willing to cheat on his wife, throw his four sons overboard, lie to his staff, and make fools of his closest friends and advisors, why in the world should the people of South Carolina, who are complete strangers and know him only from TV and personal appearances trust him? This is not a matter of forgiveness. Yes, they should forgive him, but they deserve better. The man has a proven record of deception and also misusing his office and the tax payers' money. Show him the door!

To say nothing about his naivete of putting his smarmy love life in e-mail. So add stupidity and technologically challenged to the list.