Essay About Chris Masters And Responsibility Of Investigative Journalism

“not for Publication” Chris Masters- Expository Analysis
“not for Publication” Chris Masters- Expository Analysis
Not For Publication
“Journalists are given the privilege of shared access to the first draft of history, and some responsibility to make sense of it.”(NFP) The light that Chris masters sheds on the ethics and responsibility of investigative journalism in relation to the public and on whom the report on is explored in Not for publication. Masters’ expository discourse develops the common ‘essential objective is profit rather that saving the world.” Masters first hand experience and unearthing of the true facets that are todays

investigative media, is more sinister than one would expect. Through direct expressions of Masters’ concern we see how the public is stimulated and deluded by masses of entertainment and propaganda, the cry for bad news is so inert in our society, that the concept of Masters exposition stories would not mediate to the mass media.

The level of manipulation of the news is alarming when brought to our attention, Masters goes on further to explore why this news is manipulated, to our ill-surprise, it is manipulated for the very people who watch it, the public. The escalating sensationalism and violence that the media embellishes to is what Masters argues to be, what the public want, “the massage is hard to avoid: [the public] want blood, their own blood”. This is one of his major concerns, as a journalist, he wants to illuminate the factors that establish modern journalism, the condescending truths and untruths that deliver entertainment over morals.

Chris Master incorporates the ‘duty of journalists [as] to reshape information and get that information to the public’, while this is important and periodically essential, it is his broad knowledge tells us that ‘the best journalism is the journalism to challenge the orthodox, respectfully challenge the public opinion and occasionally deliver bad news’(pg 5). While this is almost evident in Masters’ book, but the fact he did not deliver these stories that seem perfectly fit for ‘today’s journalism’ he attains a kind of benevolence, and consideration for his subjects. As seen in his anonymity, which shows the reader how it is not worth the social and media torment of the journalistic process. Quite powerfully he delivers the calming words that many of us already know, perhaps by our own nature or experience: ‘In order for there to be good journalism, journalists need to find a balance between what they want to present and what the public wants’.

Masters derived this perhaps in light of his prior work on Four Corners, he almost uses this as an epitome of good journalism, not only does he relate, but as those of us who have seen the program, would understand the link he makes to a good journalist in pursuit of truth in a story, however contrary to the subject and quite often against public orthodox. It is this line of journalism that Masters incorporates to establish as the ‘better journalism’, something I quite frankly see as self-lifting response to his own tainted standard, and I use the word tainted in response to his failure in the eyes for the public as a diminishing journalist who no longer reports to the masses. This can be seen as a criticism of society that is constantly filtering out ‘good journalist’, hoverer I agree more thoroughly about the ignorance of the public being important, and that some news ‘should not be told’.

Continuing from my point of Masters self elevating writing style, which is neither totally good nor bad, this is because he conveys himself as an educated and experienced, which undoubtedly stimulates the need and value of knowledge which I can not but help agree. This ‘collective wisdom’ that is investigative journalism differs from simple reporting of facts, it is the pursuit of truth. This is one of his ‘journalistic ethics’ and one he establishes as a valued on for a good journalist. He does this through his expository conventions, his selection of detail, specifically in his anonymity of his subjects, whether individuals or industries. This is effectively protecting both his source form harm and retaliation, while the ‘cover is blown’ on the issue. One such reason, perhaps a more experienced choice, is his own protection from defamation and litigation, which we can see form his context of many court cases on the issue, can quite sufficiently ‘break’ you if your facts are not correct.

While Masters does not divulge the information that perhaps would be most useful to the public, i.e. who? Not just what?. This however, in itself encourages his own attitude and own opinion. Masters develops a Narrative voice and a sense of authorial intrusion, which not only reflects his won attitudes and values but also supports the purpose of the text. In ‘Plutonium One, To, Three’ the selection of metaphors for these