While at the New York Review of Books Jay Rosen asks what is in a sense the opposite question—would it make any difference if the press were doing their jobs in a fair and even-handed manner?
There is a risk that journalists could do their job brilliantly, and it won’t really matter, because Trump supporters categorically reject it, Trump opponents already believed it, and the neither-nors aren’t paying close enough attention. In a different way, there is a risk that journalists could succeed at the production of great journalism and fail at its distribution, because the platforms created by the tech industry have so overtaken the task of organizing public attention.
There is an obvious risk that the press will lose touch with the country, fall out of contact with American culture. Newsroom diversity is supposed to prevent that, but the diversity project has itself been undermined by a longer and deeper project in mainstream journalism, which I have called the View from Nowhere, by which I mean the attempt to acquire authority by constructing an artificial impartiality, by “performing objectivity.â€
At this point I don’t think that journalists are capable of reporting the news objectively and, indeed, as suggested by Mr. Rosen, they disparage it, viz. “artificial impartiality”. The journalistic fashion these days is to tell stories with a point of view and, since it’s the only point of view a reporter really knows, the point of view is inevitably the reporter’s.
No one, other than possibly the reporter’s mother, is interested in the reporter’s point of view. But it’s what’s taught in the J-schools and what’s acceptable in the newsrooms so there you have it.
I also find Mr. Rosen’s origin story of the charge of “fake news” suspect. I think you trace it back through Dan Rather’s TANG story, to the Dateline NBC ficitonalized story on the Ford Pinto through a 1981 60 Minutes report on truck accidents for which they received an Emmy, right back to the “brutally unfair”, as Claire Booth Luce put it, treatment of Barry Goldwater:
SAN FRANCISCO, July 7 (UPI) — Former Ambassador Clare Boothe Luce accused the press today of “brutally unfair†treatment of Senator Barry Goldwater. She described him as “Mr. Republican Victim of 1964.â€
“The press always picks a Republican victim,†she said. Asked whether her criticism exÂtended to. Time and Life, pubÂlished by her husband, Henry Luce, she replied: “I don’t think they’ve been as fair as they should have been.â€
That precedes talk radio, cable news, and the 24 hour news cycle by a quarter century. I think it really traces back a century to when the foundations of modern journalism were laid and Republicans were the establishment while Democrats and unions were plucky underdog outsiders. Now Democrats, the federal bureaucracy, and public employees’ unions are as established as an establishment can get while journalists have not changed their focus.
I don’t think I can answer Mr. Rosen’s question. It’s just too fantastical. But isn’t it worth a try?
Now we rather clearly have two very distinct realities, neither of which is particularly real.
News no longer seems like ‘news.”. In fact one can almost be predictive about the content of news “scripts,” dependent on whether they are tuning into Fox, CNN, MSNBC, and so on.
I remember reading a Sheryl attkisson piece where she talked about journalists having news items brought to them – literally being placed on their desk, complete with the “facts” that were to augment the material to be distributed to the public. Investigative reporting, by an investigative journalism appears to be almost extinct.
With this in mind how is one able to glean what is true and what is smple an ideological narrative?
The article is quite atful. Hate describes Trump supporters, but anger, despair, and disbelief describe the opposition. Trying to discredit the media presupposes that the media is correct, and Trump supporters are trying to replace the truth with falsehood.
The sad pathetic reality is that Mr. Rosen really believes that he is being objective. What Mr. Rosen and his peers fail to realize is that nobody hates them. Nobody cares about them. They are destined for the ash heap of history. Their time has come and gone.
Like a Medieval scientist, Mr. Rosen refuses to point the telescope to the sky. For the Medieval scientist, the Earth was the center of the universe. For Mr. Rosen, he is the center of the universe.
As long as journalism remains a business, they will go in whatever direction will get them eyeballs and money and it seems that opinion journalism is where the money is.
It isn’t working for them.
The data are for 2017. I don’t really think that’s a viable explanation.
Yeah. I think Dave is correct. Naked monetary self interest is the cynical (and we know I like cynical) explanation. But they are shooting their dicks off.
I think they believe their bullshit. I think they fear for their franchise. I really do. The beast has been attacked and severely wounded. It is responding accordingly.
I liked Tasty quip: like a Mideival scientist….
I think you are trying to avoid the question. Suppose they did write without any bias? What would they do differently? They actually wrote positive stuff about Goresuch when he got chosen, but they really can’t write about him every day. The coverage about North Korea has been positive. What else would they write?
I think Trump supporters think it is unfair that they write about his sex scandals, but when did the media ever not obsess over sex scandals. Not cover his tweets? How can they not do that? Not cover the constant turnover? When have they ever not covered that stuff?
So, don’t avoid it. What would they do differently? Even the tax cuts that got tons of coverage and should have generated more positive coverage was mixed because they had so much trouble passing it. Think about that. Republicans had trouble agreeing on tax cuts. Almost didn’t pass. Doesn’t that speak poorly for leadership?
Also, CNN had record viewership in 2017.
http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/2017-ratings-cnn-is-down-in-prime-time-but-earns-its-largest-audience-ever-in-total-day/353147
Steve
With President Trump’s election (or nomination), the news media became irrelevant, but he is just riding the wave of the future. Everything about news and the media is changing. I and others may not like it, but it is the future. The media did not help with their antics of the past two years, but the millennials are the reason for the changes.
I do not get the Twitter thing, but I am amazed that a 71 year old man is the King of Twitter.
I’ll make a prediction. At some point, say 5-10 years, the internet will be split. The larger part will appear much the same as it does now, unless one looks closely. The smaller part will be limited to government and military and other security-related services and to commercial users. Again, this smaller part will resemble the current internet in some ways — there will be blogs and corporate websites and maybe Amazon will be there, but I don’t know about Facebook and Twitter and Ashley Madison and Tender and a batch of others. Also, you’ll probably have to pay to access this second Internet, and probably it won’t be cheap. But it’ll be what matters, so most of us will pony up.
What would be so different about the second internet. Point 1– pay for use. If you want to send me an email explaining that Hilary Clinton is secret lesbian, for instance, you’ll pay something to your ISP for the privilege — a dime perhaps — and I’ll have to pay something similar if I see your email in my Outlook box and decide to read it. Send your little email to fifteen million of your close personal friends, and it’ll cost you 1.5 million dollars — or maybe 3 million dollars, there shouldn’t be a quantity discount for this kind of thing.
Point 2 — verified users. Your email doesn’t get onto my computer unless I’m really convinced it came from someone known to me or from someone going through a variety of tedious procedures to assure me that they deserve my attention. And any time I choose I can re-verify your identity — maybe I won’t open your email until you scan an eyeball for me or pass a fingerprint check.
Point 3 — no bulls***. Your claim that Hillary is a lesbian doesn’t even make it out of your RS232 port until you link to one or more previous messages on this secure internet, or unless you clearly and unambiguously proclaim at the start that you are speculating. If it amuses you to post messages proclaiming “LEFTIST TERRORISTS KILL DONALT TRUMP IN BOSTON”, do that on the “soft” internet and no one will blink. Send that kind of message on the second internet and Army divisions start moving about on five continents. So get the facts straight.
Point 4 — humans can’t be trusted to be so careful, so everything on the secure internet is going to be monitored by machines, by the best possible AI we can create, with moderate amounts of human intervention and supervision.
Over time, yet another 5-10 years, I would expect that most serious news buffs and policy wonks will switch most of their web watching to the secure internet. People who want to exchange recipes and show off snapshots and check their doctor’s appointments and so on can keep on using the soft internet, but I’d guess that a lot of stuff which now seems prominent — 4CHAN, REDDIT, RED STATE, maybe even OUTSIDE THE BELTWAY — where people discuss politics and the significance of various news events, would start to dwindle. And over time, a lot of politics and emotionalism might be drained from the internet.
Maybe the KKK will be reduced to sending out lynch party invitations by old fashioned letters with postage stamps!
steve:
Since neither of the two articles to which I’ve linked asks that question, it can hardly be the question and I can hardly be said to be avoiding it. However, it is a question and I’ll do my best to answer it.
What should they be doing differently? They should cover a story as long as it’s news and then cover something else. They should report on every important story regardless of whose ox gets gored. At some point when you’ve re-reported the same story without material developments every day it’s no longer news. More 5Ws; less point of view.
What they’re doing now is propaganda—repeating something until it’s believed—and, even worse, it’s boring propaganda.
mike schupp:
I doubt it. I think the emotionalism is the consequence of a visual, a post-literate society. An enormous number of people these days can read the words without comprehending the meaning of the written word. That’s what I mean by “post-literate”.
That leads to a more agonistic form of expression which is what we’re seeing.
“What they’re doing now is propaganda—repeating something until it’s believed”
What stories would those be? yes, it gets tiresome hearing about yet another Trump high level official leaving their position, but that gets covered in any presidency. Trump’s tweets? How can they not cover those? So what exactly are you thinking about?
Just so you know this is a standing challenge I have out to a number of conservatives. They want conspiracy stories about Hillary or Obama or whoever on the from page, but as far as actual Trump coverage, they can’t seem to come up with much.
Steve