You Can’t Handle the Truth!
If the world of politics is now so dominated by spin and media management that ‘reality’ is whatever you choose it to be, what’s the proper role of journalism?It’s to find the truth and report it, right? Journalists are employed to serve their readers and viewers by cutting through hype, digging out red herrings, challenging misleading statements and exposing what’s really going on. You would think so, wouldn’t you?
But it turns out it’s a little more complicated than that. So complicated in fact that one of the world’s most respected and established media outlets – The New York Times no less – has seen fit to ask its readers whether its journalists should be “truth vigilantes”.
Via Mr Denmore
11 Comments
What’s hilarious is to go to the NYT piece in question, as well as a follow-up piece where the writer attempted to clarify his question (but only succeeded in digging his own grave further), and read the comments where the writer totally has his ass handed to him.
Seems to me that journalism is devolving to the point where it is not facts that are reported but rather the opposing points of view (in cases where there are opposing points of view). Hence, the journalist presents the “view from nowhere” where A said X and B said Y – you decide. This view is presented regardless of the veracity or merit of X or Y, let alone the actual facts. I do believe that organisations like Fox News call this approach “balance”.
This particular cancer, unfortunately, appears to be spreading.
Given all this talk about the decline in the veracity of political journalism, one would be forgiven for thinking that there was a journalistic golden age of long ago, in which nothing but the gospel truth would pass the lips of men who were somehow untouched by the inherent human qualities of prejuidice and bias.
The following is pretty much what I wrote at Mr Denmore’s [admirable] site.
” ….. what’s the proper role of journalism?
It’s to find the truth and report it, right? Journalists are employed to serve their readers and viewers by cutting through hype, digging out red herrings, challenging misleading statements and exposing what’s really going on. You would think so, wouldn’t you?”
No.
I wouldn’t.
The proper role of journalism, as defined by their employers and owners [remember: who pays the piper calls the tune], is to deliver eyeballs and ears to the mass medium [tv/radio/print/whatever] so that advertisers, and the mass medium, can maximise profits.
Thats it essentially.
Has been for many decades, even generations.
Why pretend otherwise?
fredex
Why pretend otherwise?
Yeah, it may often be verging on futility. But then perhaps it’s a salutary exercise to try to goad the maestro into revising the repertoire (to continue the ‘paying the piper’ analogy). Fun too, occasionally. But, of course, perfectibility (however defined) is rather a Sisyphian slog.
If a newspaper employed journalists to find out the truth and report on it, I might actually buy that newspaper thus delivering my eyes to the advertiser. Does that sound like a viable business model? Obviously not.
Howie, do a little research into the placement of retractions (ie lies and genuine mistakes) away from the front pages of newspapers over the last 50 years or so…
You would have to be either naive or incompetent to believe the standards have always been precisely the same….there is a genuine decline in accountability.
Roger Miller
I think you’ve got it, a NEW business model for newspapers, telling it like it is.
Seriously I have never been able to find a news outlet that did that, every publication I have read has some bias or blind-spot… and I’ve tried most.
I used to buy and defend the Oz despite the editorial and opinion writers because it employed Journalists to find the truth and report on it. The children overboard fiasco springs to mind as a story that was pursued by the journalists at the oz until the facts came out.
I stopped buying the Oz when they told me on their front page that it would cost me $6000 to wire my home for the NBN.
Jonesy,
I guess I’ll have to defer to your ‘research’.
Curiously, in the course thereof, did you note whether Crikey publishes its corrections at the top of its homepage? Specifically, when it published not just an incorrect article but a defamatory one, did it run the retraction on the ‘front page’ without court coercion? Serious question.
As to your ‘research’, I’d be eager to have a gander. Do share.
Political journalism is the worst at this game, because the he and the she in he-says/she-saysis always some unnamed, senior figure in the party ie. who cannot even be directly challenged.
I recall a political interview some years ago where the interviewer started a question with “some people are saying…” and the politician immediately asked who they were. Similarly, there was an episode of Yes Minister where Sir Humphrey was giving advice on this technique – you ask a question yourself, and then you can legitimately say “Minister, some people are asking …” because, after all, you are a person.