In several recent posts and comments, I've been hitting on several aspects of the deficiencies in current press coverage in the American mainstream media, with Patrick of Patrick's Place looking at the issue from a somewhat different angle.
I just came across this post at the Orcinus blog, which is a comment from one of his readers, that hits on a related point that I think is critical: Accuracy, science and the 'digital divide'.
Accuracy in reporting events and in analysis should, in every single case without exception for the forseeable future, trump "balance" as the highest journalistic value and measure of journalistic integrity.
Accuracy is by its very nature already "fair" and "balanced." The fact of any matter does not need to be "balanced" by the inclusion of opinions based on inaccuracy. It is my personal belief that the press have become so paranoid of being labeled "biased" by conservatives that the actual facts of most issues have been watered down to the point of being meaningless. For example, it is simply a fact that the president gave Americans false reasons for making war on Iraq, whether by accident or by design. The story here is not whether this is a fact, as it has been largely covered. The story here is whether he lied on purpose or whether he is simply a puppet of his neocon masters. The only purpose "balance" serves in this case is to maintain the president's unaccountability to voters.
... It has gotten so bad almost all issues appear to be he-said/he-said situations, which detracts from the importance of real issues and contributes to the polarization of American politics.
The comment goes on to talk about important science is in many current policy issues, from stem-cell research to terrorists' attempts to acquires chemical, bioligical and nuclear weapons. There is plenty of bogus information out there on scientific issues, from "creationist" advocates to "alternative medicine" enthusiasts, with a legion of idealists, cranks and scamsters pushing them.
A big problem in the current media environment compared to 20 years ago, is that standards of accuracy have decline. So one phony allegation by a high official gets "balanced" in a news report with a well-sourced and factually sound statement by another. The result is the quality of news reporting, and the value it adds to public discussion of issues important in a democracy, is declining.
The "he-said/she-said" style of coverage can also smother important nuances. For example, on the issue of the Iraq War, there has been a certain amount of libertarian-conservative opposition to the war, as well as that from "paleo-conservatives" like Pat Buchanan, that really has never been covered much in the mainstream press. But those ideas, for better or worse, are likely to be influential in shaping the post-Iraq War positions of the military and mainstream conservatives.
Orcinus has been commenting on various issues relating to current approaches to news coverage for the last several days.
1 comment:
Bruce,
It's an interesting opinion, but it makes some rather unrealistic assumptions. The fear of being viewed "conservative" isn't the driving force in the "lack of balance."
I could go up to any reporter in my newsroom and ask them whether they care if viewers think they're conservative in their beliefs. Those that DO would likely care ONLY because it would imply that they aren't presenting a neutral look at things. (Most people do not believe that being labelled "conservative" OR "liberal" must mean that they're being insulted.)
The driving force for presenting the OTHER side is more likely the fear of being sued. This doesn't have to be a bad thing. The truth is a defense for libel, after all. But as you yourself must be willing to admit, there are times when there is value to liberals when a conservative DOES get the chance to have their say, and ends up putting his foot in their mouth. To exclude anyone a chance at defending himself or digging the whole deeper for himself, seems unfair and biased to me, and certainly journalistically-irresponsible.
My point is that as a news consumer, I want the facts, first. But I also want BOTH SIDES of an argument. I'm generally pretty sharp and can conclude for myself which side I believe when I've given both to consider. Frankly, when I'm handed one side, I question why they didn't bother to address the other; in other words, I'm quite suspicious of something that seems so clear but fails to address (or examine or question) alternative points of view. I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh for this reason. You see, it works BOTH ways with me.
Patrick
Post a Comment