The more you know about a subject, the more you're scared about the people who practice the profession. The more a student gets into medicine, the more they're scared about the licensed doctors out there. Or, when someone works in the airline industry, the more they realize it's amazing more planes don't crash. Ignorance really is bliss. I get on an airplane trusting that the people in charge have been duly trained in all aspects of whatever it takes for planes to get off the ground and carry me safely from point A to point B. I don't even know what I don't know or what I should be scared someone is or isn't doing. I just get on thinking, heck, it's JetBlue... they're professional... what are they really going to do? Well, the same can be said for journalism. No, we don't need pilot's licenses (we have the First Amendment) but there are still a select portion of people who actually write for a living that have degrees and doctorates in this field we call journalism. We're supposed to be the professionals. The ones to carry passengers from the lede (point A) to the end (point B). And as such, our frequent fliers take our word for it that we've been duly trained in our p's and q's, checked our sources and understand the meaning of "full disclosure," "conflict of interest," "fair and accurate," and "full and complete reporting." They don't really even know they're trusting us to know those things. They just do. They believe most of everything they read. They trust that we have their best interests in mind... what they really should know and the truth, not just what they want to hear. We're trustees of the media, a voluntary electorate that has the power to vote against printing stories and vote to publish others. Censorship happens every day in media, by necessity. And you trust us to wield that power. Sadly, the more I get into this field, the more I'm scared about the people who practice this profession. The more I'm scared about their choices of censorship, their understanding of getting you from point A to point B. Where they're voting yes and voting no. I used to be critical of the media in the same way I'm critical of an airline -- considering only what is viewable to me, rather than seeing what goes on behind the scenes. What they're not doing that could cause me to crash and burn. We're all taught to be critical of our media, but I wonder how many of us really can be without the proper instruction? I can't be rightfully critical of a plane or pilot, doctor or hospital, without knowing the terms and conditions of appropriate standards. Of course, not everyone can be an expert in all fields of practice. Sometimes you just have to trust. You have to rely on the credibility of your source. Their reputation. Their track record. Their references. In journalism, I can't possibly fact check every story I read or ask every news anchor to send me a list of their sources so I can follow up. I probably don't even have time to read the same story from two or three different media (if available) so I can compare notes. So what do we do? Do we choose to fly anyway and trust? Sure, but we should make every effort to ensure it is a calculated trust. You have more ability to rightfully critique our media than we do pilots or doctors, even without being a professional journalist. And I submit that journalists, by the very nature of the profession, should be scrutinized even more carefully than a doctor or a pilot because our profession is not black and white. It's not about saving lives or safety. It's about information and education. It's selective censorship. It's very grey. And it's dealing directly with your perception of your world. And hopefully, if more people begin to rightfully and circumspectly critique media, the more professional journalists will realize they have to carefully consider what they censor, what they publish and how trustworthy they really are. It's all about another value inherent in journalism - transparency. For when journalists are truly transparent, ignorance isn't possible. | 
