Pre-2015, the categorical journalistic aversion to sensationalism was not just warranted and wise but required by the ethos of the profession. But journalists were also required—more than anyone else—to register that, beginning in June 2015, America entered a new era that required new sensitivities.
When I see a journalist complimenting another journalist for being nonsensationalist, I take that as a clear signal that both journalists are deliberately underreporting the nature of the threats America now faces in order to maintain a death-grip on the journalistic cultural capital of another era.
The best way to honor the ethoi of the pre-Trump era isn't to reimagine them as immune to time and circumstances but to acknowledge that ethoi are dynamic responses to history and the evolving communities that comprise a nation. Times change—and it's ethical to adapt ethoi to present circumstances.
Seth- I get the point truly. My issue is their ethical line is murder. Genocide by annihilation of our America with deaths via less health care, benefits, protections, rights and outright military with guns plus a wacko JFK. How can our Ethoi fight that? My Ethoi is so confused 😵💫
I think that ethe or ethea or ethoses is more correct than ethoi as the plural of ethos.
I learned a new word! (And that doesn't happen to me very often.) Thanks for "ethoi." Of course, it completely makes sense.
Ethoi is an unfamiliar word, is it plural of ethos?
yes
✅
Thanks. Just learned something. Now i don’t have to look it up. Obviously forgot Latin class. Lol
To hover in and around sensationalism while maintaining some semblance of historical journalistic integrity would require that step beyond traditional reporting into utilizing the emotional state of the reader. Sensationalism weaponizes the psyche of the consumer - sensationalize strategically.