Scepticism is a necessary and vital part of the journalist's toolkit. But when scepticism becomes cynicism it can close off thought and block the search for truth.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
For me, a really radical position for journalism to take is to stop being cynical. Cynicism is what passes for insight among the mediocre.
Journalists, who are skeptical to begin with, simply do not like to be lied to or made fools of.
There's a certain kind of scepticism that can't bear uncertainty.
Cynicism is an unpleasant way of saying the truth.
The three main sources of scepticism are first, that not every people desires freedom; second, that democracy in certain parts of the world would be dangerous; and third, that there is little the world's democracies can do to advance freedom outside their countries.
Journalists are supposed to be skeptical, that's what keeps them digging rather than simply accepting the official line, whether it comes from government or corporate bureaucrats.
The journalistic endeavor - at least theoretically - is grounded in objectivity. The goal is to get you to understand what happened, when and to whom.
Scientists are skeptics. It's unfortunate that the word 'skeptic' has taken on other connotations in the culture involving nihilism and cynicism. Really, in its pure and original meaning, it's just thoughtful inquiry.
I think that there's a strain in journalism that believes that anyone who surrenders him- or herself to faith and to belief necessarily checks reason and rationality at the door.
Its attitude, which it has preached and practiced, is skepticism. Now, it finds, the public is applying that skepticism to the press.
No opposing quotes found.