I'm going to take a brief break from posting
reviews of cooking magazines, and instead ponder something more related to the political side of this blog. Let's talk about the news media.
Now, I know the idea of bias in the media has been done to death, so though I believe it exists, and it's one root cause of the generally poor media coverage we live with today, I'm not going to comment on it. Likewise with the public's desire for sensationalism and the news industry's need to cater to it to garner ratings--it's been said before, and I have no reason to restate the case. However, I think there's another root cause, one that I haven't heard identified before, and it's that one I'd like to discuss.
I think one of the main problems with our media today is the tendency to report what someone
says as news. Take a look at your local newspaper or watch a TV news report and count how many times the main point of a story is about some person or some group saying something. The number's pretty high, isn't it? It's especially high in the areas of politics and foreign policy.
There are two large problems with reporting someone's words as news. The first is that words can be untrue. It's very easy (and frankly, very common) for someone to say something that they believe is true, but is not, or worse still, something that they know is not true, but that they want to lend the illusion of truth to. Politicians and diplomats use the media in this latter way to try to create impressions among the public, among the world community, and in the minds of their adversaries. Want an example? How about President Ahmadinejad, who rules a country that sits atop one of the world's largest oil deposits, saying that Iran is developing nuclear technology so that it can use it to create energy?
The second problem is that reporting someone's words gives them weight. If I were to say that the moon is made of green cheese, you'd tell me that I was an idiot. However, if my words were reported in the New York Times, for instance, under a headline like "Blogger Claims Moon is Cheese", and then that story was picked up by various other newspapers, and a few other crackpots decided they'd chime in for the publicity, pretty soon there would at least be an element of doubt as to the moon's makeup in the mind of some segment of the general public. And if I had some sort of credentials that could allow me to claim "expert" status (like, say, founding an organization consisting of three other crackpots and myself called the Lunar Geology Group), then the effect is even greater. Then the story's headline might say, "Lunar Study Finds Moon is Cheese".
Politicians use this tactic all the time. It's a valuable defensive maneuver! Here's how it works. Suppose the House of Representatives is considering a bill that appropriates $77 million for development of a museum honoring pizza. The Pizza Museum will be located in Chicago, and will benefit the city by creating jobs, enhancing the area in which it is built, and supporting Chicago's claim that Chicago-style pizza is the most "authentic" (nyah, nyah New York!). Some politicians might oppose this bill, arguing that there's no real need to spend taxpayer money for construction of a museum honoring pizza.
To employ the strategy described above, proponents of the bill should immediately call a press conference and denounce their opponents for "pandering to lingering racism against the noble Italian immigrants that helped our city prosper in days gone by". It won’t matter that the real reason for the opposition to the bill was based on fiscal responsibility. If the accusation is reported (and re-reported) in the media, the opponents are left with the uncomfortable position of having to defend themselves against being called racist Italian-o-phobes. Their real point--the idea that the money could be better spent elsewhere--may also be reported, but the accusation has been given (at least) equal weight. Frankly, the winner of a conflict like this, at least in the sphere of public opinion, often seems come down to the side that succeeds in getting the most coverage.
None of this is hard to see and understand, and I suspect that most members of the media are well aware of this phenomena. One might think that they wouldn't want to let themselves be used this way, and yet they often seem to be willing participants. Why might this be?
There are obviously conspiracy theories related to media bias that could fill the bill here, but I'm a fan of Occam's razor, and I think there are two simpler reasons that provide an explanation. The first and most powerful is that reporting words is
easy. Most politicians actively seek out the press and publicity, and when they have something they want to get out to the public, the first thing they do is issue a press release or try to arrange a press conference. Many celebrities and corporations do the same. If your story is going to be about what a public figure says about an issue, it's only really necessary to record their words, and you can pretty much get right to the writing.
The alternative approach is much more difficult. It involves doing research on the issue, checking to see whether the public figure's statement is accurate with respect to the facts, whether it presents a reasonably complete picture of the situation, searching out plausible alternative viewpoints to present as well, and determining whether the public figure's actions support the views made in his statement. Taking this approach will obviously result in a far more accurate and realistic story, but it's a
lot more work and takes more time. In theory, much of this research is already supposed to take place, but far too often in reality, only lip service is paid.
The second reason it's so tempting for the media to report words as news is objectivity. You see, whether realistic or not, members of the news media want and need the public to believe that they are objective (and to be fair, I believe that in most cases, they themselves want and need to believe that they are objective)--that they report facts, rather than subjective opinion. When a public figure makes a statement, it's completely objective to report the words that came out of their mouth. There's usually little doubt what words were uttered, especially if they're also printed in a press release or recorded. Objectivity is never in doubt.
On the other hand, to challenge someone's words in a story, a certain amount of analysis is required, and therefore the door opens to subjectivity. Consider the example I gave above. Here's how an analytic story might begin.
Representative Mortonsen today accused his opponents of lingering racism towards Italian Americans in their attempt to stop funding for the Museum of Pizza. "They're caught in the 19th century," Mortonsen said, "when Italians were 'wops' and people didn't want their daughter to marry one." However, no evidence could be found to support this claim, and House Minority Whip Roger Daugherty, speaking for the opposition, provided an alternative reason to reject the bill. Daugherty cited the cost of the project and the need for money for higher priority projects, such as repair of highway bridges and infrastructure, as the cause for opposing funds for the museum.
The story might then go on to explore the claim of racism and the evidence that leads the reporter to conclude that it is baseless, and then to look at Daugherty’s argument in favor of doling out funding based on the public’s needs. But it's that statement, "no evidence could be found" that causes problems. According to who? How hard did the reporter look for evidence? Is it possible they missed something? If the story is titled appropriately--something like "Priorities, Not Racism, Root Cause", then the fear that elements of subjectivity have crept into the news becomes even greater. Is the media outlet that publishes a story like this printing opinion rather than news?
I submit, however, that the objectivity ship has already sailed. The perception that the various media outlets are biased is already so firmly entrenched, that there seems to be little notion of objectivity left to protect. Continuing the current approach leads only into deeper perception of subjectivity, as public figures lose any remaining fear of being called on falsehoods they utter, the words reported get further and further from truth, and the media outlets fear to question their veracity due to concerns about violating objectivity.
Okay, so to capture my argument to this point, the media reports words as news because it's quick and easy, and it can be done with objectivity. And it's not working. What to do?
One open avenue would be to follow the outline of my example above, perform the necessary analysis, provide alternate viewpoints and confront inaccuracies. However, the skepticism of the media towards this approach is on the mark--it falls afoul of the objectivity principal just discussed, or at least it has grave potential to do so. Theoretically I suppose it's possible to walk the narrow line of no opinion, but it would be very difficult. In addition, it's too labor-intensive. I believe that media outlets simply wouldn't spend the necessary labor dollars per story to do this idea justice.
But here’s an alternative approach, one that I think might actually work if it were tried.
What if a media outlet took the attitude that words are not news, but actions are? Let’s consider a TV news program that takes this stance. This theoretical program would report out on political votes and activities, actions taken by celebrities, countries, states and municipalities. The program would not ask questions about
why someone did something (though opinion shows might), but instead would focus on
what they did. And imagine that for stories on actions with lasting effects, such as passage of a law or a decision to sell arms to another country, the program habitually did a follow up one year later along the lines of "One year ago today, the Smoot-Hawley tariff was passed. Let's take a look at the impact it's had to date." Would the public like this concept? In the end, that’s the real litmus test. However, this concept does have the advantage that it addressed the two issues we identified earlier.
Unlike the option to analyze statements and attempt to separate fact from fiction, this concept conforms to the objectivity standard. Reporting on actions carries just as much objectivity as reporting on words, if not more so. And reporting on actions is almost as easy as treating words as news. While press conferences might not be as frequent, stories are still easy to write if the action is known. And if it's unknown...well, we have that problem under today's system, too, don't we? That's what investigative journalism does--bring hidden actions to light.
This idea also addresses the two ways in which treating words as news lead to poor news coverage. Words can be untrue. Actions are what they are, and while it’s certainly possible for them to be misleading (even, perhaps, purposely misleading), it’s much more difficult and expensive to create false impressions with actions. I suspect that it's hard and expensive enough that the net reduction in falsehoods reported as news would be drastic. Moreover, the whole issue of giving equal weight to opposing viewpoints, even if they don’t have equal merit, fades away.
If this concept were to catch on, I submit that it would initiate behavior change in our politicians as well, as they’d be forced to act in a way that is consistent with the principals their constituents elected them for. The phrase “paying lip service” would no longer apply. It might carry over to other professions as well, such as lawyers (who would not be able to take advantage of the “court of public opinion” nearly as easily), or diplomats (who would be less able to sway policy via the pressure of public opinion).
I have no illusion that all reporting would be conducted this way. There will always be a place for the tabloids. However, if reporting actions became the standard for the higher-quality media outlets, and reporting of words were relegated to the equivalent of the magazines at the supermarket checkout lines, I think we’d have a much better-informed public. And isn’t informing the public what news coverage is all about?
