Media Meltdown
4 November 2005
–by Mike Murray
There’s an old joke that goes something like this: “What do you call 100 attorneys at the bottom of the ocean? A good start.”
The essence of that sentiment is nearly as old as the profession itself. It appears in William Shakespeare’s work (who had one of his characters proclaim, “First, we kill all the lawyers”) and in scribblings that long preceded The Bard’s.
The object of the joke’s derision has since expanded to other professions, and now includes insurance salesmen, financial planners, politicians, and — yes — journalists.
The Fourth Estate isn’t what it used to be. Not that it ever was pure, mind you. But the beginning of the end of any pretense at innocence was ushered in a few years ago when, at a gathering of her peers, CNN reporter Christiane Amanpour said of George W. Bush, “He got elected on our watch.”
Her point was clear. She deemed it the media’s prerogative (no, responsibility) to see to it that only the “right people” achieve elective office. Astonishing.
But if that admission was inopportune (Amanpour has since seen her star tarnish a bit — sure, she still has an important role at CNN, but her ABC gig and her presence on U.S. television are all but nonexistent), it was at least honestly reflective of the state of her profession. Agendas abound in the world of television and cable newscasts, in media websites, in radio programming, and in newsprint.
It would take many thousands of words to document all of the violations of the tenets of good journalism committed by The New York Times over the past few years. The paper’s own ombudsman recently stated that bias is rife throughout the publication, and that only a fool could miss it. (Though he did qualify his criticism with this amusing caveat: the bias is inadvertent. Har, har, har, dee, har, har. So they’re not really bad-intentioned over at the Gray Lady; they’re merely incompetent?)
I suppose that a case for incompetence can be made considering that the Times does, after all, employ Maureen Dowd. Dowdy Miss Maureen once proclaimed in her column that then-VP nominee Dick Cheney was a “balding, well-fed, middle-aged, white male.” As if those were all things for which he needed to apologize. And she kept her job. (Heck, she won a Pulitzer! So much for the prestige of that award.)
Can you imagine what have happened if her Times colleague, David Brooks, had written something equally offensive in describing an African-American politician, something such as: “…a sausage-legged, hair-thinning, matronly, black female…”? Do you think he would have had time to clean out his desk and clear the building before the door clipped his keester?
Some newspapers now think it a sign of balance that they carry both Dowd and Brooks, in a kind of point, counter-point arrangement. Come on, now. If editors really wanted to demonstrate fairness, they’d choose someone other than the calm, rational Brooks to offset Dowd. Contrasting a flamethrower like Dowd requires someone equally bent toward intense, outrageous commentary. Someone like Ann Coulter.
There are many ways American audiences evaluate the media. Take newspapers. Is the ratio of left- to right-leaning columnists roughly 1 to 1? Or is it more like 2 to 1, or even 3 or 4 to 1? Do news stories fairly present facts, or do they contain — particularly in their “narrative,” story-telling formats — embedded opinions?
When articles are carried from other publications, do they reflect balance? For every piece picked up from the liberal Washington Post, is one also run from the conservative Washington Times? For every New York Times import, is there a companion article from the New York Post?
Perhaps the present state of the public’s esteem for the media (which is to say low — a notch below politicians and a tad above child molesters) is less a function of declining standards and more a case of lessened pretense.
The past gave us Edward R. Murrow, William Randolph Hearst, and Walter Cronkite.
Murrow is practically a saint in media circles. But largely overlooked is the fact that he faked some broadcasts, that he took payments from his show’s sponsors, that he lied about his undergraduate institution and field of study — and that he made up a fictitious master’s degree from Stanford University out of whole cloth. And then there was his grandstanding, self-promoting, credit-taking style. (The guy was way ahead of his time in those categories. A pioneer, really.)
And, contrary to the beliefs of many, Murrow did not “take down” Republican Senator Joseph McCarthy, who was reeling from attacks — from both the left and the right — long before TV Ed got into the act. But it plays well in journalism circles to praise him as the slayer of Mean Mister McCarthy.
Also lost in the fog of journalism is the fact that McCarthy’s initial lieutenant just happened to be Robert F. Kennedy, who served as Joe’s lawyer assistant — until he was forced aside by an even more aggressive and calculating Roy Coen. Details, details. It’s fair to say that McCarthyism was once synonymous with Kennedyism. (RFK later put McCarthy’s grandstanding style to better result via his own Senate committee’s investigation into the Mafia — the Kennedy family’s ties to “the mob” withstanding.)
Then there was William Randolph Hearst. Woe betide the person who crossed him. That old warning, “Never argue with someone who buys his ink by the barrel” was tailor-made for him. More than one foe was bludgeoned by headlines that virtually blared from his publications.
And Walter Cronkite? “The most trusted man in America?” Well, he was a kindly old gent. Friendly, articulate, intelligent. But he had acquired way too much power. When he declared the Vietnam conflict to be “unwinable,” he helped make it so.
It seems unlikely that his intent was anything but honorable (he did, after all, admit years later that his profession had long tilted heavily in one political direction). Still, in elevating one person — one unelected person, at that — to such a lofty place in society, America granted him an immense power of suggestion. But if Cronkite’s status provided him an “iron fist,” he usually kept it encased in a “velvet glove.”
Among today’s journalists, however, the gloves are definitely off. “Decorum be damned,” one such creature anonymously screamed from within an editorial (written in support of recent Senate shenanigans). They think themselves brash and bold; to many, they are merely snotty and juvenile. And, excepting flamethrowers like Dowd and Coulter (and, okay, some reasonable columnists, too), many of them hide in the dark. Like things that crawl in the night, they scurry when a light switch is thrown.
Editorials are prime examples. Unnamed people (editorial board members) bat about some issue of the day. A dominant (which is not always to say a majority) opinion emerges. An editorial is subsequently written by an unidentified author. Readers are not informed of the degrees of agreement and disagreement within the group. Neither are they apprised of the arguments of dissent, if any.
Much in the way reporters prize their secret sources (well, sometimes, anyway …some leakers being good, others evil), newspaper representatives would have us take it on faith that the process by which editorials are arrived at makes sense, and that we should consequently grant them serious consideration.
Just as we are expected to trust that reporters’ unnamed (often described as “well placed”) sources are real, are truthful, and are possessed of no personal grudges or agendas, so too should we just trust that newspapers are altruistic, that they have only the public good — as they believe themselves uniquely qualified to determine it — in mind.
Well. The stewardship over the process by which “news” is selectively accumulated, edited, disseminated, and opined about can no longer be entirely entrusted — if it ever should have been — to those few businesses (and they are businesses) that comprise the media.
It should come as no surprise that many media outlets — in the name of curbing the power of “special interests” — favor limits on campaign spending. The media would like to do most of the talking when it comes to political discourse. Too much speech on the part of others dilutes their own influence.
So, too, does chatter on the Internet. Hence the bashing of bloggers. Sure, in addition to some good content, much of the blather at web sites is factually questionable and biased. Exactly how does that differ from the entrenched media’s offerings?
Moreover, their self-pitying, “blame the media” lament fails to engender much sympathy. Is it any wonder why? If the media wants to stop being the object of the public’s ridicule, it needs to change its ways. It needs to stop its “news with a ‘tude” approach. It needs to cease seeking to instill anger and fear in order to boost ratings and circulation.
It needs to adopt a fairer approach.
Despite mighty attempts to assist politically (exactly how much does all that free content add up to in terms of in-kind giving, anyway?), big media’s candidates have more often than not gone down in flames in recent years. Why do you suppose that is? Simply put, the public is suspicious of their motives.
Still, the news is not all grim for the mainstream media. Even in an increasingly competitive environment, the slide in market share can be slowed. Reputations can be rebuilt.
Presenting news in less ideologically slanted ways would help restore trust. So would balancing the number of politically partisan columnists and commentators. Editorials that identify their authors would be refreshing, as would the provision of space for the opinions of dissenting editorial board members. And, when importing reports from other publications, doing so more equitably between left- and right-leaning sources would communicate a commitment to fairness.
Finally, inasmuch as many newspapers seem to think it a good idea to publish the names of people who hold concealed-carry weapons permits, perhaps they could similarly disclose relevant information regarding their own employees.
Providing readers with information such as the party affiliations and campaign contributions of reporters, columnists, editors, and publishers — anyone who reports about, comments on, or otherwise influences governmental or political content — would serve the public interest every bit as much (more, even) than data concerning weapons permits held by law-abiding citizens.
Journalists are entitled to support whomever they wish; an awareness of specific loyalties that extend beyond the ballot box (joining a political party; making donations), however, would provide context, context that would help readers more carefully evaluate articles, columns, and editorials. (Disclosure: I am a member of no political party. And, other than a couple of donations to independent candidates who have run for office in my city of residence, I have made no political contributions during the past 20 years.)
It’s a changing world out there. The public is less cowed these days by those making bulk ink purchases and by those who control the airwaves. The avenues by which news and commentary are dispensed are growing exponentially. Traditional news outlets are faced with unprecedented competition for audience.
The mainstream media can either rededicate itself to fairness, or it can hasten its downward slide.
Copyright © 2005 Michael F. Murray All rights reserved.
