What is the difference between informing and opining? Does the expression of a “strong opinion” indicate the practice of such a thing as “hard-hitting” journalism? Doesn’t the increased intensity of an entity mean only its increased conformance with the basal principles that define it? In that regard, wouldn’t hard-hitting journalism mean the expression of fewer opinions or no opinions at all?
Is Wikipedia the ideal journalistic entity? Does it present a “help yourself” model towards information accretion? Can Wikipedia be brought under that hallowed umbrella even though it strives to maintain information credibility without professing a duty toward society?
Is sensitivity a necessary part of journalism? Must journalism dissociate itself from the constructivist viewpoint and exist as an isolated entity whose sole duty is to ensure the transfer of information from the generation-sphere to the consumption-sphere? Should journalism distance itself from the obligation of chamfering the content? Is the involvement of the information-transfer arm necessary in deciding how that content is delivered, who it is delivered unto, and why? Does the quintessence of journalism predicate that, along with the dictation of certain methodologies to preserve its moral validity at the best of and the worst of times, those who do acquire the information must also ensure its safe “injection” into the proletariat?
Can journalism be said to occupy the “midbloc”, whereupon the “forebloc” is the information-generation sphere and the “antebloc” is the information-consumption sphere? Does the midbloc function in a manner that is so much as idiosyncratically separated from the order of the other two blocs? Does a discrepancy in the internal polity of the midbloc represent the loss of power-symmetry between the other two blocs?
Are the roles of the forebloc and the antebloc interchangeable? If interchangeableness can be said to imply a role-based symmetry, does the position of a midbloc in turn entail an internal symmetry of service hierarchy? If a journalist can be said to acquiring information ethically—or with a code of ethics customized to his or her industry—from the forebloc and conveying it to the antebloc, and if the roles of the forebloc and the antebloc are interchangeable, then is it the duty of the journalist to ensure that the information is disseminated into the proletariat with an analogical set of ethics that is reflective of the methods through which the information was acquired? In other words, if it is the duty of the journalist to be ethical during information acquirement, should he or she be ethical during information dissemination? What regulations does such an ethical code necessitate?
Does the isolation from the constructivist viewpoint interfere in this regard? Does an exception exist within reasonable context to identify the midbloc as a unique entity within which the positions of constructivism are limited?