A happy coincidence, sure, but today’s “From The Publisher” column in the Rocky Mountain News speaks to many of the topics raised in my post yesterday concerning the role of the legacy media in shaping (and then maintaining the parameters of) the national debate. Here’s John Temple, “Let’s raise debate about media”:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
I wrote last week that one reason we need a federal shield law is that those 45 words of the First Amendment no longer adequately protect journalists from overzealous prosecutors trying to force them to testify about their sources with the threat of jail.
The response by some showed the depth of anger with the press abroad in our land. That anger, I believe, can blind people both to the importance of robust and, yes, sometimes faulty publications and the efforts of most news organizations to address credibility problems.
“You lost the right to protection when you became crusaders instead of reporters,” wrote one reader, who signed his e-mail “With disgust.”
Whoa! There is nothing in the First Amendment saying the press must be fair or even accurate. While those are qualities many news organizations aspire to – and many readers seek – they are not a requirement. Nor did the authors of the amendment believe they should be. The journalists at the time of the Revolution were no angels. Character assassination and even fabrication were par for the course. So let’s not spend our time dwelling in nostalgia for an era that never existed.
[my emphasis] This is, to be fair, refreshingly honest—though it suffers from a self-consciousness about its own place in the information landscape that blinds it to certain less-insular realities. It is true that most people no longer trust the legacy media. But much of that distrust comes from having been burned by “reporting” that it turns out did not meet the standards Mr Temple notes “many new organizations aspire to” but are not required (at least by the First Amendment) to maintain. Which is to say, that mistrust is born from the failure of the media to meet certain expectations—expectations Mr Temple would have us believe the media should never technically have been held to.
But the problem with such an argument is that second-order narratives—the ones that teach us about the media in the first place—differ decidedly in content than the one Temple pitches here. Remember back to your days in grammar school, for instance. Were you taught about the newspapers and journalists that they were inherently biased—and, per the First Amendment, under no obligation to be “fair or even accurate”? Or were you taught that heir aim was to bring facts to the fore, objectively, so that readers could make informed judgments?
Mr Temple is likely correct in noting that we shouldn’t be “dwelling in nostalgia for an era that never existed”—but he is only correct on an epistemological technicality: that the media never actually existed as an unbiased or “neutral” purveyor of facts is the inevitable result of human subjectivity. But what is important to remember is that there is nothing about human subjectivity that keeps journalists from aspiring to be as objective as is possible, or as fair as is necessary to give “news” its title—something Mr Temple acknowledges, to be sure, but something he gives too little weight, particularly in light of the second order narratives used to teach us, at an early age, how we are to consider the media.
My call yesterday was to begin the cycle differently—essentially, to teach children that the First Amendment allows for freedom of the press, but that with freedom comes responsibility, and the press doesn’t always take that responsibility to mean it must be fair or even accurate. Sometimes, it takes “responsibility” to mean it must gently finesse the public into adopting certain positions, be they on global warming, the war in Iraq, etc.
And it makes no sense, from a publisher’s standpoint, I would think, to divide the paper up into sections—keeping “opinion” and editorial separate from “news”—if one truly believed that it wasn’t the obligation of the press to be fair and accurate in its news coverage.
Mr Temple continues:
[…]
Another e-mail said: “Ask yourself who protects the public from a news media out of control—before you ask for special laws to protect reporters who may not verify sources or source statements before going to press e.g. Dan Rather!”I don’t want to go down the Dan Rather hole, but the answer regarding who protects the public from an irresponsible media outlet has become much clearer today with the explosion of voices on the Internet. The ability of the public to police the media and politicians is greater today, I believe, than ever before.
Dan Rather is proof of that. He’s no longer anchoring the CBS Evening News. I welcome the greater power citizens have gained. It actually helps make news organizations better. Why? Because journalists hear more quickly, often and directly from their readers and because more voices are heard on the Web, where people don’t need to buy ink by the barrel, than was ever possible before.
This is, to put it bluntly, the standard media line with respect to the blogosphere—though we’ve all seen that, when a reporter gets agitated and the facade lifts, he or she tends to view blogs with more than a little disdain.
And as I pointed out yesterday, it is easier to approve of the new media dynamic, from the perspective of the mainstream press, now that a new second-order narrative has sprung up to defend it—namely, those “progressive” sites who work hard to occupy the media critics on the right with attacks and reassertions of the status quo narrative being peddled by a press to which they are ideologically sympathetic (if not always in agreement). And as the legacy media recognizes more and more that, of the politically interested, those who maintain an allegiance to it are of the “progressive” bent, they will, I fear, begin appealing more and more to that readership base.
Which would explain, at least partially, why we’ve seen the mainstream press become so bold, oftentimes, in their biases—and why they are able to print factual errors over and over again as if they were repeating truths. Because they know that “truth,” in the world of progressive politics (and under certain philosophical conditions tied to such politics), is nothing more that that which is repeated most often and becomes entrenched and established within the prevailing cultural narrative.
Which, to those of us who follow these things closely, is obvious—and the source of our frustration. But to those who follow news only tangentially—and who were reared on the premise that journalists aspired to “reporting the facts”—the bias is not so obvious. Because while most people almost reflexively these days have come to understand that there is, in reporting, an inherent bias (accounting for the level of media mistrust), that doesn’t mean that they recognize the individual cases of bias that are subtly informing their worldview.
New media, as Mr Temple notes, can act as a corrective. But it would be far more effective were we to make it clear early on that there is, with the press, no obligation to be fair or even accurate. Assuming that they aspire to those standards is, it turns out, dangerous. Perhaps we should be teaching children that they need to apply Reagan’s model to the press: trust, but verify.
If it isn’t too early to teach children that the US was founded in the wake of a genocide against Native Americans, it certainly isn’t too early to teach them that such things are based on opinion and not objective fact.
Or, as someone mentioned in the earlier thread, perhaps we should just slap warning labels on everything. Hell, they do it on Canadian TV…
What it comes down to is not so much “responsibility” but “credibility”. When news organisations toute their objectivity or balance or whatever buzzword is for accuracy and then go off and print easily refuted one sided falsehoods, they lose their professional credibility. When they advocate for special protections for themselves that they don’t apply to those they cover, like bullshit shield laws, they show themselves to be arrogant and eliteist.
The most glaring example of this attitude was their support for McCain-Feingold; they made sure that they would be exempt from it as they knew what power they would have to “shape events” politically in the directions they desired rather than try to convey accurate information to the public. IOW they were for the censorship of their political foes at the expense of the 1st Amendment. Which undermines their credibility even more. They still don’t get it.
Jeff G:
Exactly. How are we going to get the lesson across if we are chained to facts? As Jeff Jarvis neatly puts it:
Jeff J:
Lessons, baby, lessons.
The problem with any shield law appears right in the amendment.
If freedom of the press means being shielded from testifying about anything related to your conduct as a journalist then wouldn’t an equally applicable shield exist for anyone exercising any other right descibed under the first amendment?
Since speech is to be as broadly interpreted as possible doesn’t that pretty much mean that no one could ever be called to testify about anything ever again?
Not sure if TerryH was being ironic or not, but as long as that’s the dominant paradigm the problem will continue to get worse.
Scientists have two concepts: data and information. “Information” is processed data—data that has been put in context. “Data” is not information, but data is absolutely necessary because it is the raw material from which information is made.
“Facts”—data—must be available before “truth”—information—can be generated. Journalism has apparently decided that facts, being nothing but raw material, are beneath their notice, and they should jump directly to “truth”. It doesn’t work. In fact, it makes them tools in the hand of the first demagogue with a coherent narrative; exactly the situation at present.
The legacy media can survive, and even prosper, if and only if they reject the elitist attitudes that make them easy prey for beancounters and demagogues, and get into the business of providing facts—data—from which others can determine information—truth.
Regards,
Ric
Warnings are not necessary. All one needs is the media to report truthfully about itself. If it will not do that there is not point in keeping it about. Which is, of course, the direction it is headed what with cratering subscriptions and falling ratings.
Fornutately for me it might survive long enough to help the Mullahs get a nuclear bomb or two before it finally collapses. Unless an insider or two is moved to report honestly about what his colleagues have been up to for the past five years. In which case I will be screwed. And all the major western citires might survive in tact.
Oh, is that all?
Once again Musab is right. the failure of the western media is of huge concern to me and those like me, but we do not need for them to sirvive for much longer. Like Walter Duranty chose Stalin, for good or ill I have chosen CNN and all the rest.
Ahh, infidel McGhee, but it is necessary. There are those whose names are O’Rielly and York and Hume (and all the rest) who are invited to all of the right parties. Who are privy to all the green room conversations. Who have been exposed to the acts of the Gregorys and the Wares and the Rathers for years. They know where to look, they know the questions to ask, but they do not. Instead they sit silently while the infidel Russert lies to a federal court then happily appear on his show. Instead the sit silently whiloe the AP invents a patently false story about burned Sunis and then publish things such as when the “Media is Right.” You have the voice to speak, but you do not have the courage to open your mouths.
We have very little voice, but we have the courage to say what we wish. Given time and your continued cooperation you will be amwazed at what we will accomplish.
Oh, and CNN and all the rest, they have chosen me. I would be very surprised if that is a great secret in America’s newsrooms.
Ghost of Zarkman:
I understand your point, but fear this will induce a war of attrition that cannot yet be won.
The guest who asks Russert an uncomfortable question about Russert’s behavior will never see the inside of the MTP studio again.
The truthtelling of the Humes and Yorks will only induce greater isolation of their respective outlets, no? This does the income46 of these people and outlets no good.
I see Another Bob, the solution now, while the future of billions hangs in the balance, while all of western civilization is poised on the verge og a very steep precipe, is to surrender. I like that reasoning. It has served me well so far and bodes well for my future.
Also I would note that Mr. Russert’s show is live. Once the question was asked no media outlet anywhere could put it back in the bag, no? If they tried they would hasten the disaster that is stalking them consdierably would they not?
You confuse personal greed (conservative pundits and reporters banking upon the largesse of their noticably corrupt colleagues to keep them on television) with man’s constant struggle against hideous, murderous depravity. It has been my experience that the truth does not grow stronger when it is hidden, that is why I seek to hide it.
People need to develop a taste for human flesh.
Metaphorically, I mean.
Take the press corps(e), for example. As the Ghost of alternately Abu Musab Al Zarqawi and Musab Al Zarqawi points out, the self-policing function is absent and the other-policing function is specifically restricted.
What strikes me about the lack of self-policing in the press is how unspoken it seems to be (not in a newsroom, so I’m not privy to whether it’s discussed much there). There’s not much public talk about whether, say, the WaPo should go after NYT for some major distortion, lie, etc.
Part of it, no doubt, is the massive (self-reported 90%) majority who share the same delusions. Part of it is the fear of reciprocity.
Part of it is just habit – they’ve got away with it this long, haven’t they?
The concept that the Blogosphere is the “correcting influence” is just a way of getting unpaid volunteers to do all their work for them. It’s a really, REALLY severe free-rider problem.
If a paper were REALLY innovative, they would make an offer that a blogger who creates a major correction should have it printed, with byline, and paid for it.
But “innovation is forbidden” in the progressosphere, just like one other sphere that might come up now and then.
It never protected journalists from their civic duty. That has always been a mythical “right”.
Or that you have super constitutional rights to ignore court order to testify.
This Merovign, he is a frightening infidel.
Mwuhahahahahahahaaaaaaa indeed!
How much bolder might they become if they are relieved of the inherent accountability of a paper-trail, if they never have to print anything at all? If all they are accountable for are half-remembered dulcet-toned murmurings?
NPR’s distortions, bias, and as we talked about yesterday, outright lies, are literally exempt from deconstruction and criticism because the text-based raw materials of critique are withheld.
NPR’s policy on transcripts is as follows:
There is one curious exception to NPR’s policy:
Evidently, aside from topics concerning “the Mideast,” NPR deems that no other programming crosses the threshold of “intense listener interest” that would warrant offering their prepared transcripts for subsequent examination and debate to the taxpayers that helped generate them.
Curious then, that with their endless hours of Iraq coverage, only a select few of their stories are offered under the above policies – curious in that they have been whole-hearted in their embrace and reportage of the Iraq Study Group’s report that places Palestinians squarely at the center of a resolution of the conflict in Iraq.
NPR, whose foundation currently has liquid assets (PDF) totaling $242,039,668 owing to a $230 million dollar bequest from fast-food heiress Joan Kroc. In light of these extraordinary resources, let’s take a look at the “cost prohibitive” transcription expenses that make it utterly impossible for NPR to allow the release of these materials, prepared substantially at taxpayer-expense, into the blogosphere where they might serve to nourish public debate…
From the 2005 IRS Form 990 (PDF – pg 7) NPR is required to file, we learn that “transcription services” (Burrelles Information Services) for the year totaled…
Form 990 does not require NPR to itemize their transcript revenue, not that I could find, anyway, but keep in mind there is an independent revenue stream that is generated when these transcripts are included in databases like Lexus-Nexus and NewsBank.
Incidently, NPR’s onerous transcript expense is a bit less than what they shelled out to lobbyists in 2005 ($263,631) (Form 990 pg 11).
John Temple writes that…
NPR, by limiting the distribution of the text of its reportage, is largely exempt from the corrective mechanism Temple describes. NPR no longer even feels compelled to maintain an ombudsman to evaluate whether their reportage remains in keeping with their statement of ethics. In the media landscape, they are unique in the degree of unaccountability in which they operate. And they like it that way.
Wow, happyfeet, that’s damning.
In the shamelss plug category, I would note that I previously wrote about the rise of the standard of objectivity in progressivism, which carries with it the seeds of its own demise.
So where is the Gay Porn?
Musab had to run. Golf in the lake of fire with Che and Pol Pot. Ironically enough, Willaim Randolph Hurst and Walter Duranty are caddying, but that’s always what they were best at, no?
Still, he thought I should point out that the corrective to all of journalism’s ills, and some of western societyy’s ills as well is integrity. Those in the media with integrity must show some.
Of course, it might be that there is no one in the media with any integrity at all. It might be that it is an organization where integrity is a a minus. In that it would be rather like Al Qaeda, no?
Maybe I have been wrong all along now that I think about it. For years I thought the media was embedding itself with me. Perhaps, just perhaps, I was mebedding myself with it.
Yes, at the end there that should be embedding. You infidels try typing with your neck shattered and your head hanging off to one side.
happyfeet:
A) You’re obsessed with NPR.
B) Good job!
As I mentioned in the past, I’m the daughter of an ad man who got his start in the newpaper business (1950’s So. Cal…Citizen News, The Examiner) and grew up with dinner table discussion topics that included journalism and the fine points of advertising. Old school reportage did aspire to reporting the facts and letting the chips fall where they may—but when “reporters” started coming not from the ranks of young men who apprenticed up the ladder from copyboy but from college sanctioned Schools of Journalism with shiny new degrees, no street creds but a burning dedication to telling the public what it ought to know [for its own good, of course!], the fine, tenous lines between news/opinion/advertising twisted, then stretched to the point where they have largely disappeared.
For “progressives”, perception is reality just as the personal is the political. If enough legacy media just keeps repeating some Accepted Wisdom like the Swiftboat Vets “slandered” John Kerry in their “smear ads” then somewhere, sometime it will become “fact” …
Amazing how hysterical proggs get when you challenge their “belief” system…
Kinda like the moslem community’s belief that the Holocaust never happened and the willingness of teachers to avoid teaching the fact of the Holocaust least they “upset” ‘em.
Here’s another discussion of Schorr (apologies if this already appeared in the previous thread – I’m too lazy to go check…)
Mr. Beldar finds a previous Schorr screed which amply demonstrates that Schorr has is not above popping off with a bald-faced lie:
Mr. Beldar also notes that he has emailed NPR for an explanation, so check back soon. Hah.
Alphie,
Why, in particular, do you believe: “Someone is going to have to pay back trillions of dollars?”
BRD
Dagnabit – wrong thread.
Jeff, that’s why I always have to laugh whenever someone starts talking about how the “New Media” has changed the face of reporting because they’re holding the Drive-Bys feet to the fire, blah, blah, blah. Sure, the dynamic has changed a bit, but the people who read blogs and other internet sites comprise a tiny minority of the general public. The Drive-By Media can still control the terms of the debate by using the Goebbelsian technique of repeating the Big Lie long enough and loudly enough that it becomes received wisdom.
It’s very depressing.
The argument has been that the blog demographic is disproportionately comprised of opinion leaders. “Influentials” or “Mavens”, e.g., – there have been several takes on it. PJM probably makes a nod at this in its media kit.
[url=”http://www.brandweek.com/bw/news/spotlight/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003553675″ target=”_blank”]
This[/url] guy suggests that this sort of thinking has gone way too far.
oops
here’s the link