Journalists have never been popular. It is a profession, after all, that has as its foremost aim bringing information to light.
Journalists have never been popular. It is a profession, after all, that has as its foremost aim bringing information to light. Very often, there is someone who would prefer to see that information buried or delivered with a different spin. An embarrassing drunken driving arrest. An unfavorable outcome in a lawsuit. An action, sometimes well intentioned, that encounters public opposition.
News reporting is also, by definition, done quickly, and any effort in which speed is involved carries greater risk of error. Of the many dubious contributions of technology to journalism there is now at least the opportunity for these to be spotted and corrected sooner.
Facts are a great comfort to journalists, who more often are operating in the gray areas of newsworthiness, tone and balance. The latter are inherently subjective, though good journalists are constantly weighing and refining their choice of words, quotes and images in pursuit of impossible goals of truth and fairness.
But facts! Hard, immutable, provable facts. These are the bedrock of democracy, and when these are challenged, it is no longer just journalism that is under attack. So it was this week when a spokesman for the new administration in Washington cited “alternative facts” to dispute the true, widely reported size of the crowd that attended President Trump’s inauguration.
If there is any upside to the incident it is in the reminder that there is a line — and it is not a fine one — between healthy skepticism of news reporting and a denial of basic facts.
Trust in the news media, always an up-and-down affair, has been in a trough for some time now, and much of the blames falls to those of us in print and broadcast news for failures great and small. The internet and social media have at once democratized and complicated the landscape, spreading both truth and fiction and making it more difficult to tell them apart. No doubt it now takes more effort than it once did to judge the credibility of news sources, but it has never been more important.
There is still a need in our democracy for a free press, flawed, ungainly, uncontrollable as it may be, to act as a check and balance on other institutions and to bring to light information that in any particular instance some will find uncomfortable.
Go ahead and criticize the media; we’re accustomed to it. But please also stand up for the First Amendment. The alternative is too awful to consider.
Comments
A DEFENSE OF A FREE PRESS
Steve Horton Fowlerville, MichiganA DEFENSE OF A FREE PRESS
A while back I re-read the memoir "Deadline" by the late James 'Scotty' Reston who, during a 50-plus year career with the 'New York Times', was a World War II reporter in Great Britain, a Washington DC bureau chief, a widely-read and respected columnist, and finally executive editor. I picked it up this evening to check out his remembrance of the McCarthy Era, a recollection I feel is comparable to the current situation. While that information will await a future commentary, I saw that, while he worked for the 'Times', he and his wife owned a weekly newspaper in Martha's Vineyard, called 'The Vineyard Gazette'. Out of curiosity I looked up the paper's website, perused the Home page and, lo and behold, saw this timely editorial called 'No Alternative'. Here it is:
Note: I shared this on the Facebook of my weekly newspaper that I've owned and operated for the past 32 years--the Fowlerville News & Views-- located in Fowlerville, Michigan. I found the sentiments of your recent editorial similar to my own. If interested, the website is: www.fowlervillenewsandviews.com
A high and mighty and noble
KF Rogers Marco Island FLA high and mighty and noble piece. You, however, created this monster and mistrust with a self-serving agenda. There is no check and balance. You curate, disseminate and bring to light the information perceived to help your cause. You are the liberal media. You are not a righteous, vetting, truth-seeking service for your readers.
Hallelujah Mr. Rogers!!
Mike North CarolinaHallelujah Mr. Rogers!! "Truth" and the liberal news media are oxymoronic!
What have you ever seen in a
Fred Roven EdgartownWhat have you ever seen in a reputable news source that was not corrected if new factual information came to light?
A free press is the basis of
Proudly Progressive HarwichA free press is the basis of democracy. It brings to light information that should be brought to light. His name calling and bullying has made liberal a bad word, so you sneeringly call MVG liberal media. It's still a free country and our press is free to uphold democracy.
And therefore, you Mr. or Ms Rogers, prefer to trust an habitual liar, narcissist, egomaniac who does not believe in democracy, and believes he was cheated out of winning the popular vote, maybe by the same "bad dudes" who are lining up to come into the country. The president spreads lies, fake news, or alternate facts and you believe them because you trust him. If you don't want to read a free press, try looking at his videos on YouTube. Listen to the words that come out of his mouth that make no sense. "I am a gentleman" is my favorite. Why he won't show his taxes. Lots of excuses on that one. But you trust him. I don't. No taxes, no trust.
He was elected with the help of Russian hackers, wikileaks, James Comey, and yes, the media who still think he has a mandate. He is unacceptable as a human being,never mind a president. That's why he won't show his taxes. He might lose his loyal followers before they drink the koolaid.
His brand is chaos, spinning from one issue to another, signing executive orders that are not available to the public when he signs them. What's the big secret? What kind of democracy is that?
Or, maybe you are just mad at the Gazette for publishing the true story of him sneaking around on his wife with another woman.
News should be honest, fair
Bill Bisson Oyster Bay Cove, NYNews should be honest, fair and accurate. Yet it was Jim Rutenberg of The New York Times, a media columnist, who last summer suggested that news reporters might throw away the journalistic standards guiding them for many decades and become "oppositional" – a move that would create the impression they were in Clinton's camp even if they weren't. Of course, by the time Rutenberg wrote his somewhat famous column, news reporters were already displaying their individual biases in newspapers, magazines and broadcast outlets everywhere and offering more fodder to conservatives who have spent decades attacking the media.
Judges who hold a conflict of interest most often recuse themselves. Perhaps those news journalists who hold strong opinions and use twitter as an echo chamber for narrative and bias confirmation should do the same? Political narratives need vetting, news belongs on the news pages and opinion writing belongs on the editorial and op-ed pages. Gallup has been tracking trust in national media since 1972. It tracked at 76% in 1976. Today it rests at 32%. This drop didn't happen by accident and to those of us who have spent decades in the news business, it's discomforting.
There is a necessary place in
Skeptical Reader ChilmarkThere is a necessary place in our society for the press. True and diligent independent journalism.
The best I can tell, that ended back in the 1980's or 1990's. What we have now is infotainment - the use of news-like information presented in a filtered and sensational format that serves an agenda - even if it is only to gain views and advertising dollars. To paraphrase a reporter on NPR: "Of course we only report stories that fit our agenda - that's what our job is.". And thus, the end of journalism.
Don't cry now - journalists were asleep at the switch when the death of journalism happened all those years ago. You got lazy during an 8-year administration that matched your ideology, so there was little conflict. Now you have an administration that does not fit with your views - and you no longer have trust of the readers/viewers. And now you wish you had remained independent.
I mistrust that "paraphrased"
Nick Mills Rockland, MaineI mistrust that "paraphrased" quote allegedly spoken by an NPR reporter. Does not sound legit to me. Can you be more specific as to who, when, and in what context those words were allegedly spoken?
"Infotainment" is a somewhat misleading coinage, a general pejorative applied too broadly to the news media. Newspapers, even the best of them, try to "entertain" readers by offering a variety of content, from the "hard news" of the A section to the Arts & Entertainment stuff. Newspapers also try to engage their readers by writing in an accessible, interesting style -- but the style should never obstruct the delivery of the story's content. Never "style over substance." One of the ways newspapers do that is to present occasional long-form narratives, factual storytelling in a unique voice that is a departure from the institutional voice of most newswriting. The Wall Street Journal carries a short narrative feature on its front page, a "human interest" story that illuminates a larger point.
The phrase "infotainment" came into vogue when local TV stations began hiring consultants to help boost the ratings of their evening news programs. The consultants focused almost totally on pleasing an audience, and not on journalism. They gave rise to the "if it bleeds, it leads" style of programming and advised news directors to ignore the dull, dreary stories of the workings of local and state government and instead highlight celebrities, tragedies, fires, accidents, and the like. I gave up watching TV news long ago. A University of Massachusetts researcher, who guest-lectured in my journalism class, studied TV news and concluded that the more you watch, the dumber you get.
Public confidence in journalism is at a low ebb, to be sure -- but some of that lack of confidence stems from the atrocious performance of TV as a news medium (with some notable exceptions) and at least some of it is due to the constant demonization of the legitimate, mainstream press by the right wing, who can't tolerate reporting that does not champion their point of view. But journalism is far from dead. There is terrific reporting going on today across many platforms, from traditional paper-and-ink newspapers to online sites, and today's news consumer has access to a much greater range of information. Sure, some of it is crap, some is fake, some is poorly reported. But by no means are journalists the "scum" and "liars" that Trump paints them to be. Journalists are more vital than ever and more essential to the preservation of democracy.
The News Media, et al, has
Lee Oak BluffsThe News Media, et al, has had a left leaning bias for a very long time. It started during FDR's presidency and by JFK they were reliably in the democratic party camp. Tempered by the radical 60's, they were openly hostile to the likes of Nixon. And, they've never truly understood the widespread popularity of Reagan. By the time Bill Clinton was elected a respected survey of members of the news media had 89% of them self identifying as Democrat or Liberal, and 91% of them voting for Clinton.
Now? There is no question that the news media at large has largely eschewed covering straight news. Outside of Fox and a few minor players, many a story is infused with a liberal bias, so much so that they've become the punchline to the proverbial joke. As a lifelong Conservative, I read the New Yorker, the New York Times, the Boston Globe, and, yes, the Vineyard Gazette just to see how out of the mainstream they have become compared to the average politics of everyday americans. Well written? Yes. But, it's all so much left-wing propaganda to me.
And judging by their falling readerships, it would appear I am not alone.
Unfortunately 'Freedom of the
robert skydell chilmarkUnfortunately 'Freedom of the Press' has been spun by the alt-right and other conservative factions which believe the 'freedom' part means you are free to say whatever you want regardless of how ridiculously far from the supportable truth it may be. The internet and the 24-hour news cycle has also created what has correctly been named 'fake news',information posing as news. It has also given license for anyone to simply dismiss a legitimate news report based on documentable evidence fake news as well when they don't care for the content. And then of course there is that brand new commodity; 'Alternative Facts'.
I learned to withhold judgment until all the facts were in but until very recently (OK, a few weeks ago) I never heard of an alternative set of facts based on nothing by opinion.
Be prepared for much more of the same as we proceed to swirl down the rabbit hole.
I do hope everyone
Washashore Chilmark / NYCI do hope everyone appreciates that this is the Vineyard Gazette, a hyperbolically local publication that largely deals in the sort of small town interest pieces of which the only legitimate nostalgic Americana is made: Johnny is planting a new crop at the farm, Susan is spearheading a conservation initiative aimed at saving this endangered flower, etc... To somehow label the Vineyard Gazette as self-deludingly "liberal" is to misunderstand the communities it represents. Show me any evidence that somehow the actual people of Martha's Vineyard, by and large, feel "mischaracterized" by their local publications and maybe then I'll see the pertinence and or validity of your charges.
With regard to allegations of "liberal bias" within the media at large: these charges are legitimate and warranted, however fail to acknowledge one of their root causes in being so. The conservative movement and Republican Party in the United States has, for quite some time, aligned itself with forces antithetical to journalistic pursuits: anti-intellectualism and religious conservatism in reaction against an increasingly secular society. Nonetheless, what I would implore those levying these charges to do, however, is to show how such bias has manifested in a way that runs counter to truth itself. This is the overarching danger of normalizing "fake news" and the sort of unethical journalism engaged in by Breitbart and its ilk--facts are facts, period. Arguments must be supported by them, open to criticism and their advocates willing to engage in self-criticism and revision in pursuit of truth itself; on a fundamental level, they are not. To normalize the dissolution of this paramount standard is both regressive and dangerous, and the fact that these efforts have been cosigned by those now at the highest levels of our government threatens the very core of our democracy and civilization. Regardless of political affiliation, the time has come for us to rally in defense of truth and justice. We cannot allow ourselves to be ruled by fear and ignorance.
Add new comment