Submitted by: Mike Spindell, Guest Blogger
A lynchpin of the idea of America has been the meme “freedom of the press”. It is specifically mentioned in the First Amendment and many have declared it essential as a bulwark against tyranny. The Constitution, however, was written at the time when it took little expense to produce a newspaper or a one sheet broadside informing the people about one’s point of view. It was a time that had no media except for the print media and so “the press” as it existed then played a central role in informing the citizenry about the important issues of the time. From 1704 on the regular newspapers and magazines in the colonies had begun to charge for advertising, but the price of a paper still was the most significant revenue stream. While press freedom always was impacted by the major advertisers a paper had, the impact was quite minimal for more than 150 years, most importantly because each newspaper reflected its publisher’s point of view and that was the raison d’etre for the publishers. Then too, one could publish independent leaflets (broadsides) that could also sway the public discourse. Print media, which mainly included newspapers and magazines held sway as the conduit through which most Americans learned of the doings of the world and from which they formed their opinions politically. This “monopoly” last until the late 1930’s when the CBS and NBC radio networks started developing correspondents to go overseas and cover the world descending into war.
Depending on which side you were on the tradition of American journalism was a long and proud one. It played a significant role in the American Revolution and continued to do so for long afterward. The “free press” almost always took sides in that certain publications were known for their views and from what point on the political spectrum they saw the world. Investigative reporting was a proud American tradition, protected in the main by our Constitution and exposing the dark underside of America’s dream. The reader either is aware of, or can easily find instances where such reporting made a difference in the “people’s view” of a given issue and so I won’t detail the history except broadly. Sometimes, such as in William Randolph Hearst’s manufacture of the “The Spanish American War”, this press freedom was used in service of private interests. At other times with journalists like Lincoln Steffens; Ida B. Wells; Ambrose Bierce; Upton Sinclair; and Jacob Riis; to name a few, the public was informed of corruption both public and private in a long tradition dating back to the founding of this country. Whether one agreed, or disagreed with the information source, one could depend on the fact that given the already obvious point of view of the journalist/reporter, what they were reading was indeed a nuanced version of the facts that at least properly developed one side of the issue. The advent of first Radio and then Television supplanting the print media as the source of information for most Americans led to a trend in so-called “objective journalism” that has resulted in reporters/journalists/newsreaders presenting “both” sides of a dispute, without insight or context. Its’ my contention, as I’ll explain, that this has become very dangerous to the idea of an informed electorate and has resulted in sensationalistic bombast on a given issue, rather than intelligent debate allowing the public to make informed judgments as to where they stand.The idea for this blog came to me a few weeks ago after hearing about the controversy that erupted after Chuck Todd, NBC’s News Director had a discussion on the MSNBC show “Morning Joe”, with Ed Rendell, former Governor of Pennsylvania. The significant portion was this:
“MSNBC host Chuck Todd said Wednesday that when it comes to misinformation about the new federal health care law, don’t expect members of the media to correct the record.
During a segment on “Morning Joe,” former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (D) speculated that most opponents of the Affordable Care Act have been fed erroneous information about the law. Todd said that Republicans “have successfully messaged against it” but he disagrees with those who argue that the media should educate the public on the law. According to Todd, that’s President Barack Obama’s job.
“But more importantly, it would be stuff that Republicans have successfully messaged against it,” Todd told Rendell. “They don’t repeat the other stuff because they haven’t even heard the Democratic message. What I always love is people say, ‘Well, it’s you folks’ fault in the media.’ No, it’s the President of the United States’ fault for not selling it.” http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/chuck-todd-not-his-job-point-out-lies-abou
In the aftermath of more than 150,000 people signing a petition in protest of Todd’s belief, he was still somewhat nonplussed by the reaction he had caused. In truth he was clueless because from his perspective and from the perspective of all of the corporate news media in this country just presenting both sides of an issue meets their journalistic obligations and they have no duty to inform the public when clear misstatements are being made. I’d originally thought when I planned this piece to go into a long history of why this once honorable profession has fallen on hard times, but my preference is to cut to the chase. The broadcast and digital media has become the most important source of educating the public as to the issues of our time. I say educating specifically because as I see it the purpose of including the press in the First Amendment was the understanding of our founding Fathers that in order to maintain this new type of government they had invented, there was an overarching need for an informed public.
“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.”
Reading the First Amendment in context its aim is to ensure a public informed enough and active enough to redress any grievances they might have with potential government tyranny. From their perspective, in their era, the freedom of the press was the mechanism for ensuring that the public was informed. With the advent of the public’s information being filtered through large information entities, that are run for profit by extremely large corporations, the duty to inform the public on the issues has devolved into merely reporting the naked contentions of either side, without the need to provide context. Thus though Todd knows and has admitted that the Affordable Care Act has been wildly mischaracterized by those opposed to it, he feels no duty to inform the public of that mischaracterization or any of the mistruths associated with it. From his perspective that is the job of the Administration and they are losing the battle simply because the President has not “sold it” properly.
Todd’s view reduces journalism to mere reportage of the various statements made about an issue and the coverage of the “horse race” aspect of election campaigns. It allows vastly unqualified people of either party, to run for and attain office based merely on their ability to craft a message or to sell themselves. With people of this mindset reporting the news is it any wonder that our political system has become a circus based on the principle of advertising and public relations? I seriously wonder why anyone would bother to get a Journalism Degree any more if this is what Journalism has become. Regarding the central mindset that encourages this phenomenon NYU Journalism Professor and Media Critic, Jay Rosen wrote a blog analyzing the basics. It is called: “He Said, She Said Journalism: Lame Formula in the Land of the Active User” and he writes:
“There I am, sitting at the breakfast table, with my coffee and a copy of the New York Times, in the classic newspaper reading position from before the Web. And I come to this article, headlined “Ex-Chairman of A.I.G. Says Bailout Has Failed.” I immediately recognize in it the signs of a he said, she said account.
Quick definition: “He said, she said” journalism means…
- There’s a public dispute.
- The dispute makes news.
- No real attempt is made to assess clashing truth claims in the story, even though they are in some sense the reason for the story. (Under the “conflict makes news” test.)
- The means for assessment do exist, so it’s possible to exert a factual check on some of the claims, but for whatever reason the report declines to make use of them.
- The symmetry of two sides making opposite claims puts the reporter in the middle between polarized extremes.
When these five conditions are met, the genre is in gear. The he said part might sound like this:
Mr. Greenberg asserted that he would have reduced or at least hedged A.I.G.’s exposure to credit-default swaps in 2005, when A.I.G.’s credit rating was reduced.
“A.I.G.’s business model did not fail; its management did,” he asserted.
Followed by the “she” said…
That provoked another scornful counterattack from his former company, saying that Mr. Greenberg’s assertions were “implausible,” “not grounded in reality” and at odds with his track record of not hedging A.I.G.’s bets on credit-default swaps.
I had read enough of the Times coverage of Mr. Greenberg to wonder why the editors would run something so lame. Their business columnists have been (excuse the expression) kicking ass on meltdown coverage, including A.I.G. But here there was no attempt to assess clashing truth claims, even though Times journalism was available to do just that. Instead Hank Greenberg got to star in a game of “you say black, I say white.” http://archive.pressthink.org/2009/04/12/hesaid_shesaid.html
Mr. Rosen wrote that blog in 2009 and four years later nothing has changed. In his blog he went on to describe the advantages, to the press, of this type of reporting:
“Turn the question around for a moment: what are the advantages of the newswriting formula I have derisively labeled “he said, she said?” Rather than treat it as a problem, approach it as a kind of solution to quandaries common on the reporting trail. When, for example, a screaming fight breaks out at the city council meeting and you don’t know who’s right, but you have to report it, he said, she said makes the story instantly writable. Not a problem, but a solution to the reporter’s (deadline!) problem.
When you kinda sorta recall that Hank Greenberg is a guy who shouldn’t necessarily get the benefit of the doubt in a dispute like this, but you don’t know the history well enough to import it into your account without a high risk of error, and yet you have to produce an error-free account for tomorrow’s paper because your editor expects of you just that… he said, she said gets you there.
Or when the Congressional Budget Office issues a report on ethanol and what it’s costing us in higher food prices, the AP reporter to whom the story is given could just summarize the report, but that’s a little too much like stenography, isn’t it? So the AP adds reactions from organized groups that are primed to react.
This is a low cost way of going beyond the report itself. A familiar battle of interpretations follows, with critics of ethanol underlining the costs and supporters stressing the benefits. Of course, the AP could try to sort out those competing claims, but that would take more time and background knowledge than it probably has available for a simple “CBO report issued” story. “Supporters of ethanol disagreed, saying the report was good news…” gets the job done.
These are some of the strengths of the he said, she said genre, a newsroom workhorse for forty years. (Think it’s easy? You try making any dispute story in the world writable on deadline…)”
In the end it comes down to the truth that these types of journalism make the job of the reporter/news writer much easier. The other big advantage is it keeps you out of hot water with your bosses and leaves your work immune from criticism. However, in its wake it leaves an uninformed electorate and a news media more interested in poll numbers than it is in reporting the facts. Most Americans lead very busy lives and keeping themselves informed of the news is low on their list of priorities. Given the difficulty entailed in really obtaining the facts on a particular issue, is it any wonder how really uninformed the electorate in this country is? My point here is not pro or con health care, although some comments will no doubt go there. My interest is in whether you think this mode of reportage is either fair, or valuable in the creation of an informed public. My opinion is that it is a travesty, but your may have a different perspective.
Submitted By: Mike Spindell, Guest Blogger
Oky1,
You got it with Colbert and Stewart. When Colbert was the guest speaker at the 2006 White House Correspondent’s Dinner, he delivered one of the gutsiest speeches ever given in Washington. In little more than twenty minutes he skewered the entire press corps, calling them “stenographers” to their face. Even Keith Olbermann was critical of him the next night on his program, saying Colbert was “not funny.” Bit too close to home even for Olbermann who is no shrinking violet himself. This is twenty-four minutes of scorched earth journalism at its best, couched in comedic form.
What RWL said.
Despite the vast amount of information available in the internet age, Americans are surprisingly ignorant of the world around them. When students can’t find their own state on a map of the US, we have a problem. Despite all the news coverage of the Middle East, 63% of Americans 18 to 24 could not find Iraq on a map. Heck, a lot of them could not find New York on a map, and think Canada and Mexico have a common border. Yeah. Its called the USA.
One of the things that constantly amazes me is the inability of so many people with college degrees to understand parables and proverbs. Or analogies.
As for Chuck Todd, he seems to be a nice enough man, but he is not a reporter or journalist, despite whatever degrees or job titles he has. Can you imagine him as one of “Murrow’s Boys?” Think he could compete with the likes of Eric Sevareid, Richard Hottelet, William Shirer, Walter Cronkite or Daniel Schorr? I am not just picking on poor Chuck Todd. The same goes for most of the rest of them as well.
Using “reporter” or “journalist” in the same sentence with the stenographers on the idiot tube these days is laughable. The real reporters are found on blogs and internet journals. That is probably one reason the establishment is so resistant to calling people like us “journalists,” with the rights and privileges that come with the title.
One of my daughters used to date a newspaper editor and part time news photographer. He was with a newspaper out west, but quit his job to go to work for NASCAR in their PR department. He told me his publisher wanted everything yesterday. He did not have time to dig up facts and fill out the back story. He says it was all about a couple of phone calls to get some interesting quotes and on to the next story. Working for a big sports operation gives him what he never had in the dead tree news business. Access to sources, in depth interviews, time to develop stories, and no pressure to write a half-baked story without time to fact check.
“My interest is in whether you think this mode of reportage is either fair, or valuable in the creation of an informed public. My opinion is that it is a travesty, but your may have a different perspective.” – Mike S
That says it for me too Mike. McTell News.
Great Article Mike S.,
Mike S: “Its’ my contention, as I’ll explain, that this has become very dangerous to the idea of an informed electorate and has resulted in sensationalistic bombast on a given issue, rather than intelligent debate allowing the public to make informed judgments as to where they stand.”
Then Mike S states: “Most Americans lead very busy lives and keeping themselves informed of the news is low on their list of priorities.”
By making these statements, especially the last one, your article title should be changed to: the evolution of journalism or Americans’ desire for entertainment news has changed/ruined/destroyed the sanctity of journalism?
Let’s look at our-fellow-Americans’ background:
only 41% of 25 year olds and older have at least an associates degree.
15% of the US population has a specific reading disorders
46% of American adults can’t understand the labels on their prescriptions
50% of American adults are unable to read an 8th grade level book
33% American high school graduates will never read a book after they graduate
42% College students who will never read another book after they graduate
70% American adults have not been in a book store in the past 5 years
80% American families did not buy a book this year of 2013
15% of the US inmates are literate
Is it any wonder that we want to read or hear about the Kardashians and not the Affordable Care Act (ACA or ObamaCare)?
Unfortunately….. The ‘Decline of the free Press… often accompanies the decline of Democracy!!!! There is no Democracy without a Free Press!!!
An under reported NSA scandal from America’s news corpse…
… You know, the zombie yes wo/men of ABCNNBCBS&FOXNews(R).
A free press?
… Like a caged bird.
Gnite
MikeS, That’s real big game hunting!
We don’t need a gun & we’re hunting American hatin Commie/Nazi azzholes!
I think we bagged the ph’ers! 🙂
http://www.forbes.com/sites/halahtouryalai/2013/10/04/jamie-dimons-power-struggle-loses-bank-chairman-role-a-bigger-blow-may-come-next/
Joseph E Rathjen,
This is how you & I & others get to where we need to go!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egs53_MXboY
Ck out Greg Hunter USAWATCHDOG.com
maybe his site suits you?
**
Justice Holmes 1, October 5, 2013 at 2:16 am
Chuck Todd is the poster boy for stenographic journalism –Report what they say, don’t question, don’t research and by all means don’t bring up the facts. ( His colleague David Gregory is another great example.) This why the most respected journalists in America are Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert! They research, they show the videos, they report the facts. They are also amazingly funny and insightful and they are equal opportunity truth tellers. No one is immune from their wit or their research. **
Sorry JH, I’m calling Bullsheeet on your post!
Sold out Shill Commie Nazis the lot!
Sometime funny, ya, unless you know the facts!
Joseph E Rathjen,
Some work for a piece of paper to hang on a wall for it to only collect dust,
Some work for the trophy wife,
Oh of course we all need the Amerikan dream of a McMansion with a 30year mortgage, student loan debt out the back side & all their Vazed up kids on meth & porzac.
Joe, if you want to go to the top of the mountain there are those of us that will help you for Free!
Look at this, For Free I & many others haver tracked this bxstard Jamie Dimon/AKA: JPM for it must be a decade, we’ve at least wounded him & his name is disgraced forever by his own actions.
Oky1 1, October 4, 2013 at 7:11 pm
http://jonathanturley.org/2013/09/19/95-year-old-man-in-nursing-home-resists-going-to-hospital-police-arrive-and-shoot-and-kill-him-stun-gun-and-bean-bag-rounds/
Chuck Todd is the poster boy for stenographic journalism –Report what they say, don’t question, don’t research and by all means don’t bring up the facts. ( His colleague David Gregory is another great example.) This why the most respected journalists in America are Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert! They research, they show the videos, they report the facts. They are also amazingly funny and insightful and they are equal opportunity truth tellers. No one is immune from their wit or their research.
People do want to know that is why Jon Stewart has such high numbers. It is too bad that corporate ownership has silenced anyone who dared take them and their buddies on. I hope Stewart and Colbert continue for years to come.
Thanks for this piece.
Washington D.C. activist, Lawyer, former writer for the Hartford Courant (recognized – at one time – as the U.S. oldest paper and largest publication) and author Andrew Kreig wrote a book titled; “Spiked”. Though the name was a play on words of another writing about Russia called “Spike” – Mr. Kreig did an excellent job detailing the demise of American Journalism.
Though you would think Andrew Kreig penned a point apropos – doing so after the facts are now history; the truth of the matter is, Andrew Kreing, wrote “Spiked”
in 1988
Mike Spindell;
I concur with “hit a home run” (but do not concur coining it as ‘rant’)
Unfortunately, I’m afraid Senator Feinstein found the final motivation to join the dark side 100% – once she sent a letter to USAG Mukasey per yours truly request (purportedly on our eToys Public Corruption issues); but it was speciously turned into a quirky alternative ideal (reportedly the investigation of GOP Jerry Lewis issues)
http://thehill.com/homenews/news/14610-feinstein-grills-mukasey-about-closed-corruption-unit
We (those involved in the eToys case) were informed by persons upon high to file an 18 U.S.C. 3057(a) Complaint about the issue that the U.S. Attorney in Delaware (Colm Connolly) was declining investigating/prosecuting Goldman Sachs and Bain Capital issues. What is wrong with Colm Connolly’s behavior – is his abject silence on the issue – that Colm was a partner of MNAT firm (which represents Goldman Sachs/Bain Capital interest in Delaware).
An extensively heinous & egregious violation given the fact that MNAT confessed to lying under oath and Goldman Sachs/ Bain Capital engaged in billions in frauds schemes collusively – as an organized crime “association in fact”.
As a result of yours truly filing a December 7, 2007 18 U.S.C. 3057 and other (time/date stamped complaints) – approx twelve (12) weeks later – the DOJ’s Public Corruption Task Force was Shut Down
And career federal prosecutors were THREATENED to keep their mouths shut as to the reasons why – or ELSE!
At that time Senator Feinstine sent a letter to USAG Mukasey.
The letter was never ended and the Senator changed the email address that yours truly was provided.
Since that time, Senator Feinstein has acted as if she were a Manchurian candidate.
Agreed, poor choice on my part……..
Unfortunately, the speed and pace of the internet has taken us there. It’s like a dart competition in a bar where everyone is aiming for the bullseye but the bar is about to close, even though the game is not over. The rush to page one on Google Search or Yahoo is more important than what people find when they get there. That’s the real deadline.
I write a column for a women’s magazine (I’m not a graduate journalist) but I spend many hours researching my facts for each opinion I write. I do the same for my blog articles. Interesting you brought up polls, because I write opinion for a social research polling site. Under each opinion is a data point box. That’s for facts (sources) to be credited. It’s amusing that no one ever checks off the box, which asks if the data point was helpful or not. People are only interested in clicking the Yes or No buttons for liking or disliking the opinion. So we both know what that proves.
There’s a lot I would like to say about what has happened to journalism today, but who would listen? I recently wrote an article on how the news media has become more of a judge and jury, rather than a fact-gathering source. So, when you have that as the public’s number one news source for credibility value, things tend to become a bit contrived. How do you expect to control that?
As for ObamaCare, the real and true facts of it will be reported from household to household and around water-coolers at the office, where people will be comparing the costs of their new policies. That’s where real journalism will abound. Yes, you were right…it did come up.
I liked your article. There was a lot of truth in it. But if we think of opinions as just lazy rhetoric with no fact-based foundation…where’s the entertainment?
Good job Mike. I believe that the core of the problem with the media is the corporate ownership. Chuck Todd is a bought and paid for lackey of the corporations that are taking over this country. It is not only laziness that causes this problem. It is where the money is coming from.
You hit a home run with your rant, Mike. My sentiments exactly.
I say that we are better off now than we were fifty years ago when the likes of Edward R. Murrow had a half hour news show on a network and ten minutes of that was commercials for cigarettes and other products. Ed smoked the cigarette product on the air. The New York Times was good then and major cities had great newspapers like the Post Dispatch in Saint Louis. The news papers have declined horribly. But television has morphed. The networks stink but we have new avenues on television like CSPAN and CNN and CNBC and LINK. We can find things of world or local interest 24/7.
But the most recent and what will turn out to be the most drastic expansion of media is through this internet and these blogs by which we discuss matters of public concern.
By this blog here we are directly and indirectly assembling with each other to speak, and to petition our government for redress of grievances.
I want Dianne Feinstein and her old gophers in the Congress to drop their plans to Define what a journalist is and to limit the First Amendment protections for the rest of us. So, let us petition her and call her names if need be to stop this intrusion on our First Amendment rights. We the people.