Journalism: A swirling storm of confusion and lies, essentially

I'll be the first to admit that I'm not a huge news-watcher/reader. Usually, when news comes my way, it has to be pretty major to even take my notice. When it does, whether or not I take it all with a pinch of salt depends on the individual story. If it's a story about a major political figure doing something awful, I usually dismiss it completely. If it's a story about a soldier's death or a natural disaster, you can bet its been fact checked.

As stated before, the article about Stephen Harper(political figure) and the communion wafer being pocketed(doing something awful) made me a little skeptical for two reasons. The first reason is that Stephen Harper is currently an individual who some people love to hate, and the second reason is the headline of such a story seems overly sensational to the point of ridiculousness, sounding more like idle gossip you would overhear than a newspaper story.
The article about "Jimmy" on the other hand was nothing less than shocking. It's a story that appeals greatly to human nature and sympathy, and calling it fake would basically make you a monster. Janet Cooke used this weakness of society to put out a story that was ironclad to all but the most stonehearted of skeptics, and for once, the skeptics were right. The fact that a Pulitzer Prize was awarded to a pack of lies is nothing less than disgusting.

I believe that Shafer's assertion is accurate in part. Almost every lie is made for personal gain, whether it be absolution from responsibility or gain of power. In this age, where knowledge is power, information that you have created is extremely easy to use for your own ends. It's easier to invent a story than discover one. Because of this, in university level journalism courses, one thing that must be highly emphasized is ethics. It must be ingrained into the minds of future journalists every day that they must never fabricate the news.

When issues of these ethics arise, an ombudsman is absolutely necessary to ensure that the paper maintains its credibility. If a paper's credibility is destroyed, the paper is destroyed. An ombudsman can make or break the paper's future. The ombudsman can make that connection with the public that can make all the difference in the world. If an ombudsman makes sure that the paper responds to public complaints about the errors/falsehoods in the newspaper, it can save the newspaper from being absolutely dismissed by the public.