Failure of the Media

Failure of the Media in Our Society

Observations, comments, and analysis by Gryphem, supported by selected quotations

A free press is essential to the existence of a free people.  Without a free press fulfilling its purpose honestly and doggedly, a free society will fail.  This will happen whether the fault of the failure is government oppression and censorship, or whether the guardians of the free press themselves (the owners or supporters of the press) succumb to the vices of sloth or greed.

Throughout its history the United States of America has always been held together by the truth shared in the free press.  A colonial newspaper publisher from New York, John Peter Zenger, was the first American to defend in court the right to free speech.  He was brought to trial for criticizing the governor.  He was acquitted.  He said:

“The loss of liberty in general would soon follow the suppression of the liberty of the press; for it is an essential branch of liberty, so perhaps it is the best preservative of the whole.”  (John Peter Zenger, 1735)

Of course, truth is not one-dimensional, and the free and open nature of the press has provided a medium for public discourse, debate, and decision-making.  The American people have always had a desire to know the truth about matters that concern them, whether relating to government or social trends or public events.  They put in place restraints on the government to prevent censorship.  This free press, supported by the people, protected by the law, has survived because those who manage the press have been passionate about their mission of presenting the truth and informing the public. 

In recent years, these qualities, which have been reasonably constant for the past 275 years, are beginning to fail.  With them is going the viability of the free press in our society. 

Most discussions concerning inadequacies of the modern press center on government censorship.  Whereas that remains a valid matter for concern, it is not censorship that is the main problem of the American press in the early 21^st century.  No, today's issues are the result of the institutional failure of the organized media, and a loss of vision by the people themselves.

“The purpose of journalism is to provide people with the information they need to be free and self-governing.”  (Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel)

News should be matters of relevance, matters which the public needs to know about.  It might be political decisions, or scientific developments, or human interest stories, but it must be relevant to the society or many individuals within the audience.

News is inherently local.  Of course matters of national or global significance are important, and must be reported as news… If they affect real people at the local level.  Matters which are closer to the audience, geographically or by means of some other connection such as membership in a widely dispersed group, are matters appropriate for news coverage.

“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…”  (First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution)

The free press has always been an essential part of our free society.  Does the media in our society today tend to make our citizens more free?  It would be difficult to make that argument.  On the contrary, the media is continually feeding our fears, intimidating, raising our collective level of stress, making us less capable of dealing effectively with the problems of our time.  One reason for this is the constant focus on the most depraved acts, the most hopeless situations, that which most outrages and angers and shocks the people.  When did the media go astray?

A historical perspective:  In times past, the media (or ‘the press’) primarily reported significant events of the day, either within or affecting the locality in which the news was reported.  This might have included the reporting of crimes, but the press was not exclusively – nor even primarily – about crime.  Reporting of crime in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries resembled today’s “Police Blotter” section – a quarter page of an inner section - more than today’s outrage-inducing portrayals of violation and victimization.  The earlier press tended to focus more on reporting local political events, local social and cultural events, accomplishments of local people, matters of civic pride, calls to action to resolve problems, and business matters.  The common thread tying together that which appeared in earlier incarnations of ‘the press’ - was relevance.  The facts and events reported tended to be matters of personal concern to the readers, to be of significance to at least some segments of the community.  This changed.

We could spend a lot of time in discussion about when and where the media began to change its focus, to ‘go wrong.’  It might have been when the “Yellow Press” contributed to the onset of the Spanish-American War in the 1890s, or when the Lindberg kidnapping made a private torment public.  It might have been when television networks began to compete for ratings in the era of the Vietnam War.  It might have been caused in part by exposure to negative examples of totalitarian propaganda, which demonstrated its utility in shaping public opinion in the German Third Reich and the Soviet Union.  It might be an outgrowth of the ‘staged sensationalism’ which masqueraded as talk television in the 1990s (Downey, Raphael, and Springer come to mind). 

There are other potential reasons for the decline of the media.  The point is, the media is not primarily in the business of reporting the news any more. I doubt very many in our society could even explain in any accurate way what the term “news” means.  Or rather, what it used to mean - what it should mean.  The term “news,” as currently used, is indistinguishable from the meaning of the word “gossip.”  We should be intellectually honest and start calling those programs “The Six O’Clock Gossip” and “The Evening Gossip with Ron Burgundy” (or whoever).

When I taught history I attempted to get students to watch the news in order to expand their horizons beyond their own personal concerns.  Most did not pay any attention to the news until I pressured them to do so.  They were unable to distinguish between matters which were newsworthy, and matters presented by the media which were NOT newsworthy.  Who could blame them, really, since the networks themselves had the same inability to distinguish news from gossip?

I had to educate those students.  First I had to teach them the meaning of newsworthy.  They tended to the mistaken notion that anything abnormal or titillating was worthy of being on the news, but that is not what newsworthy should mean.  Newsworthy is an adjective which describes events or facts, recently occurring or recently discovered, which have relevance to or may have an impact upon the lives of the audience.  ‘Newsworthy’ implies that members of the audience, upon learning of a particular story, will take some action or modify some idea or attitude in response.  Newsworthy implies that the events or facts reported affect a large group of people within the audience.  Thus a relatively minor event on the local scene may be as much or more newsworthy than a much larger event far away, because the local event will tend to have more impact upon the local audience.

I had to teach students to distinguish between what might be important to a single person or very small group, and what will be considered important to the larger society.  One student insisted on reporting, as his contribution to current events, the ongoing saga of his sister’s dramatic situation in life – her job, her fights, her pregnancy, those who had wronged her.  I had to explain to that student that these events, so significant to his sister and his family, were not news in the larger sense, not newsworthy unless the audience was a close group of family and friends.

“The prevailing - and largely damaging - method of news judgment… tends to… overemphasize stories that are in fact, just anomalies…  This results in a confusion of what is actually relevant, and ultimately, newsworthy.”  (Branka Bugarista)

A sad part of this exercise was banning “horror stories.”  An event which is horrific captures the attention of the audience, but in most cases is not newsworthy.  A brutal murder does not belong in the news unless there is a lesson for the audience in how to be safer, or unless the authorities need the help of members of the audience to catch the perpetrator.  A violent murder a thousand miles away, with no local connection, is not news.  It is media voyeurism.  Similarly, even though a media source reaches into a place where a violent event has occurred, the event may not be newsworthy if it only affects a tiny minority of the audience. 

Ultimately, I quit assigning current events tasks to my students.  Even when they finally understood the distinction between news and gossip and horror stories, they – the children! – had to use their powers of discernment to distinguish what stories being presented by the media were or were not news.  They were being forced to sit through so many disturbing horror stories that, even if they ‘got it,’ it was not healthy for them to be exposed to all the negative media.

Why did the media become so negative?  Why so full of the abnormal, shocking, sensational?  The answer is simple.  Profit.  When a media outlet grabs the attention of the public with a shocking story, when they scare the public with a frightening story, they sell more papers; in the case of the electronic media, they command a greater audience share.

“William Randolph Hearst built his newspaper empire by understanding that the goal of newspapers is to sell newspapers, not to report the news.” (Seth Godin)

Sensationalism is the use of outrageous or shocking stories or quotations, emphasizing that which is controversial or abnormal or wildly dramatic, at the expense of relevance and accuracy, in order to provoke the public into paying attention.  In concept (although not in practice) it is similar to terrorism, as it uses extreme events to get the public focused.  The disease of sensationalism has spread throughout all the media today. 

News outlets routinely lead with the most outrageous stories of violence and violation.  This has led to a vast, unacknowledged paranoia throughout society.  Never mind that the media scoured a population of millions of people to find a sensational story of abuse or victimization… the viewer or reader tends to personally identify with the victim.  The negative, intimidating effect of the perpetrator is spread a million times farther than it would be in a society with responsible media.  The people of the audience, members of the society, become unreasonably scared.  The criminal influence is magnified, the effect of criminal activity is transformed into a terrorism negatively impacting the entire audience.

This does not imply that violent crime is off limits to the news.  If a violent event happens, and is relevant to the audience, it should be reported as news to that audience. On the other hand, stories of violence and victimization from afar, presented only for the very reason that they will scare or outrage the audience, are inappropriate.

A media outlet which uses sensational but irrelevant stories to increase sales (or viewership) is  not only behaving irresponsibly, but is actually a detriment to the society in which it exists.  Even in a case in which a violent story is actually newsworthy, sensational details, voyeuristic peeping into how a crime was committed, is inappropriate. 

“The press must be free; it has always been so and much evil has been corrected by it.” (Thomas Erskine, Scottish jurist)

The traditional mainstream media once aspired to impartiality.  This is not to say they always succeeded, for partisanship can never be completely eradicated.  Nor is it to say that opinion was not an important component of news in an earlier age.  It was.  In fact, highly partisan publications have helped drive the public agenda throughout American history. 

Throughout our history, the media has served as an unofficial court-of-last-appeal.  The greatest fear of corrupt politicians and unscrupulous businessmen has been exposure.  This important role of the press is a big part of how the press helps us stay free.  Check the impact of the Pentagon Papers and Watergate stories on American politics in the early 1970 for a remarkable case study in how this works.

Given all the good media has done as the watchdog of public values and the platform for public discourse, it is surprising that even this valuable role of the media has been twisted. 

Certain highly partisan media outlets with huge followings have abandoned factual news reporting in favor of presenting a certain socio-political point of view.  Every story presented via these outlets passes through a metaphorical political filter, ensuring that the news product so presented will be doctrinally pure.  Fox News (on the political right) and MSNBC (on the political left) present a great deal of opinion masquerading as fact, and aspire not to inform the public as much as they aspire to manipulate public opinion, or to coalesce public opinion around certain predetermined points of view.  Perhaps they do this for purely political purposes.  Perhaps they do this in order to sell more papers (or advertising) by providing a predictable prepackaged product (partisan stories) to consumers.  Their predictable partisanship is valued by their customers, at least in part, because it is designed to validate a preexisting point of view rather than presenting ambiguous facts which might require the effort of critical thought and decision-making.

“The real people to blame for these riots are the journalists willing to run inflammatory headlines – playing straight into the hands of extremists on both sides.”  (Sunny Hundal on ethnic riots, 2008)

Hyper-partisan media is not a characteristic of any particular political group.  It exists on the left and on the right as a societal phenomenon.  It also is not without its merits.  A historical example… The highly partisan newspaper ‘The Abolitionist’ was an effective voice forcing government and society to deal with the issue of slavery in the years leading up to the Civil War.  Even so, the pervasiveness of today’s partisan media – as the rule rather than the exception – means the public is swayed less by facts than by where they get their information.

The evolution of ‘comic news’ is a response to hyper-partisan media.  If our information is going to be presented through a filter anyway, the average citizen may think, then why not a filter that makes me smile instead of making me fearful or angry?  It’s actually very logical.  The fact is, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert – who present news as comedy – are less partisan than the rabid right or left.  Neither is comedy news an entirely new phenomena.  Will Rogers in the 1930s, and H.L. Mencken the generation before him, both used humor to convey understanding to their readers.  In fact, one of the first successful publishers in America – a statesman, diplomat, and founding father – used humor to make his points quite often.  Benjamin Franklin, preeminent publisher in colonial America, delegate to the Continental Congress and Constitutional Conventions, and author of Poor Richard’s Almanac, could be quite a comedian.

 “Without a free press there can be no free society … Without a lively sense of responsibility a free press may readily become a powerful instrument of injustice.” (Justice Felix Frankfurter, U.S. Supreme Court, 1946)

The media, properly fulfilling its societal task, is essential to a free society.  The people need to be informed of events and developments which may affect them in order to make good decisions.  They also need an outlet to give voice to their opinions, to express support or opposition or concern.  An uninformed public will not remain free for long.

I believe most fervently in freedom of the press.  Today, that freedom is in danger less from the traditional enemy, government control, than from a new enemy.  The greatest enemy of freedom of the press in our society today is - the media themselves.  By behaving irresponsibly, the media damage society and undermine their own credibility all at once. 

Obviously, government decree is not the answer to this problem.  Ideally, the media should regulate themselves, but that does not appear to be a realistic hope.  When the result of irresponsible journalism is greater profits, then the journalism will tend to become more irresponsible, sensationalistic and skewed. 

The ones who ultimately determine whether sensationalism and hyper-partisanship will increase profits are the audience.  We the members of the public choose to buy or not to buy, to watch or not, to listen or not.  The public can force the media to return to its traditional mission by influencing the media with their financial power and their ability to choose, their ability to read, listen, and watch - or to ignore.  If there is no market for sensationalism, then sensationalism will decrease.  If the audience responds to coverage by asking, “Why does this need to be in the public dialogue?” or “How is this relevant to my life?” then the media will adapt their journalistic decisions.

Commentary may be good press even though it is not strictly speaking, news.  Even so, we the public should insist on factual, non-partisan reporting as the major part of our news outlet content.  Opinion is a valid complement to factual news, but must be presented as subordinate to factual news, and must itself be reasonable and supported by fact.  Opinion and commentary, when presented in the news media, should be both newsworthy and free of sensationalism.

Partisan outlets have a moral obligation not to knowingly present falsehood and not to unnecessarily frighten or inflame their audiences.  Otherwise, they should be left to conduct their partisan business.  We must distinguish partisan information outlets from true news outlets.  Just as the World Wrestling Federation was forced to admit that its contests are not sport but theater, so those media outlets which are dedicated to presentation of opinion must be recognized as commentary channels, opinion outlets – not news.  There is a role for the partisan media in our society, but that role should be subordinate in the public mind to factual reporting. 

Comedy news programs are no more skewed in their presentation than other news sources.  They have simply chosen to forgo fear-mongering in favor of an admittedly cynical but definitely more positive humorous perspective.  As long as viewers understand when facts are in evidence, and when parody is in play, comedy news is often superior in quality and effect to the normal news outlets.  Comedy news is not the entire solution to lack of moral responsibility in the media, but it is a positive development.

“Whatever you believe creates your reality. Believe that life is a positive experience and it will be."  (Wally Amos)

Maybe your beliefs do create your reality.  Maybe your beliefs color your perception of reality, and provide your range of behavioral options.  What is evident is that acting in response to what you believe does change your world. 

Could it be that by believing the most negative events in our society are normal everyday occurrences we are making our own perspective bleak, pessimistic, and fearful? 

Could it be that by focusing on facts and events which have no real meaning to our own life situation, we become detached from reality? 

Could it be that by hearing and seeing outrageous events over which we have no control, we become agitated and stressed?

Could it be that by listening to those with a partisan agenda to advance, that we become pawns in their game of influence?

In a word, Yes.  But we can change that by changing our beliefs and expectations, and by modifying our collective behavior.

Escape from the spiral downward into fear, anger, and hyper-partisan ignorance is possible.  The solution cannot come from the government, since this is prohibited by the U.S. Constitution.  It must come from us, from the people, from society.  We have the power to create a better way.  The remedy is in adjusting our perspective and in our courageous refusal to participate in the media of gossip and voyeurism. 

It is probably accurate to conclude, like Walter Cronkite:

“And that's the way it is...”

But it might be more in the spirit of this article to echo Edward R. Murrow:

            “Good night and good luck.”

Gryphem

 

- - - - -
Postscript:  Here's a thought to help get started.  The writer was not journalist, but did present good advice and an example of how to live successfully under difficult adversarial conditions. 

“Whatever things are true, whatever things are honest, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report; if there is any virtue, and if there is any praise, think on these things… [and] peace will be with you.” (Saint Paul, Letter to Philippians)

Gryphem