The latest news pertaining to a Congressman is just silly and continues to tout “scandal, scandal, everywhere.” Two of my friends work in the field of journalism, and both posted some thoughts on the matter (one through his journalistic outlet: http://www.examiner.com/headlines-in-rochester/the-dirty-evidence). Both concur that the media circus is out of control and that this really shouldn’t have gotten the coverage it got. In a Facebook reply to one of them, I put out the following question, to which I didn’t get a response:
“…my question is how do we fix the media/discipline the media (and I contend a self-discipline answer would be slightly hypocritical as the media's partial justification for existence is to police government which isn't deemed worthy of self policing themselves)[?]”
Having no answer in reply, I thought perhaps I ought to take a stab at a couple thoughts of my own. I will be frank that not all of these are useful or is it an all-inclusive strategy, but it is just some stabs at it. I will say that I strongly feel the free press is a valuable part of our representative democracy, so I am in no way seeking to destroy that freedom. I will say that this does not however equate to a protection of the business of journalism, just a protection of the object that they are using. A fine line, but an important one, as it relates to how I see a few things and a basis from which some of these ideas originate.
1) Re-look Libel Laws.
Recently I took part in a panel with a few journalists who were very frank in talking about their field and their responsibilities.
What I saw and heard that stuck with me was a statement by one of them to the effect of “if I get the story wrong or the facts are not exactly right, what incentive or obligation do I have to correct that?”
While later he qualified that continuing to publish fraudulent or questionable stories would work towards discrediting them and thus overt lying, that gets them caught or causes negative repercussions, mainly financially, is generally frowned upon.
The real message here is that getting the facts right in journalism is not as important as getting the story, and a story that sells well.
In a field that prides itself as being the “voice of the people” and is above the yellow journalism of their past, this seems to show that media circles back to the same old themes that any other field does.
I want to be careful to not impugn every journalist with blanket lying or skirting to truth in order to get a story, but it is telling that ensuring that the facts are correct is subordinated to the telling of the tale, and a tale that sells.
So, getting to my point, perhaps a part of this is simply our lax standards as it pertains to libel.
While not having done all the research on this to be emphatic about it, but when was the last time you heard of a libel suit that was a) upheld and, more importantly, b) was of such significance that it really shook the journalism community?
The last one I can recall happened in
England, not here in the
USA.
For many reasons their laws are more stringent than ours (history being of primary importance), but perhaps we need to look at this.
If journalists, as a field, feel they can be “fast and loose” with the facts, perhaps we need to have an external measure to put a check on their balance to err on the side of telling a good story above all else, even if it is simply preventative in nature.
2) Journalism as a “Not for Profit” Industry. One of the interesting things about the mythos of journalists is that they are out their “for us” or “out to tell the untold stories” and not in it for profit, glamour, or fame. This is a good story and I will be the first to tell you that journalists, on average, are not rich or have high paying jobs. Actually most journalist truly do follow the mantra and live it. Therefore, for the individual worker bee, I am not trying to be critical. However, I am going to tell you that for the elite, the ones we see on CNN, Fox News, or ABC and those we read in Time, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and our lives are inundated with, profit, glamour, and fame are not far removed. Make note that all of these are “for profit enterprises”. Now I believe we ought to have companies that make money, that can use it to spurn innovation, investment, and allow for social progress (not to mention employ most of us), but there are some industries I really think, if they are pure to their ethos, ought not be “for profit”. Journalism, if it wants to profess the former and serve their true “forth estate” function as a check on government, needs to stay clean. It is tough to see a news outlet criticize lobbying, for instance, when they have a cadre that invades capital hill to get tax breaks or other advantages in order to make dividends for their investors. I am not saying newspapers, TV, radio, and so forth should not make money and enough money to pay their staff’s well, not at all. Nevertheless, I do think that if they are going to be able to stay true to their lofty image and mythos that is used to explain and defend their actions, they need to get out of the “for profit” model. Perhaps this will relieve some of the tension to “sell a story” in the sense of over jazzing into hysterical or hilarious levels.
3) Consider Editorial Policy Oversight. There is no question that each and every media outlet has its own policy on what will and will not be reported along with the range of freedom of authorship that will be allowed to the journalists that the outlet employs. Part of this is assignment of stories to go after and ultimately what makes it to “print”, or the “screen”, and what does not. One of the tenets in some schools of journalism is that it is the reporter’s job to reveal the things that are not seen in the main and bring them to light. In and of itself, this is invaluable tool that modern journalism has brought into our public consciousness. If it was not for Edward R. Murrow challenging the facts of Joe McCarthy’s assertions, would we still be in a Red Scare? The problem is when this is done and frankly what is brought to light is not significant enough to warrant the publishing/air time especially when there are much more important issues that ought to be more thoroughly researched and brought to light. Just take the decision to spotlight and air the thoughts and opinions of “Joe the Plummer” (an gentlemen in Ohio who happened to be named Joe and be a Plummer who had contrarian views to then candidate Obama who used the phrase “Joe the Plummer” as a way to refer to the working everyman/woman) during the last election sequence. Hours and hours were spent on this person’s thoughts, articles written about the electorate and its similarity and angst that this man had, and so forth. Not that his opinion wasn’t important to him or important in the most general sense, but were there not more pressing things to go over than knowing the personal details of his life and creating a consistent tie to a spotlight moment that turned out to be a scant side show to the real issues of the race? Alternatively, is it really necessary to scare all the parents of the country about a rare disease that affects .0005% of kids as if it was the most pressing health crisis of the decade? This ever present need to focus on the less than 1% of folks or issues and make them seem as if they are on par with things like world hunger, going to war, and so forth, is really absurd. Yes, there is a need to bring errors and problems to light so that they are not brushed under the rug, but I would suggest there needs to be some way to help inform and counter the over use of the niche inspection drive that is in modern journalism and allow for a more robust and appropriate discussion of those issues that are of primary importance. In a sense, we need a third party professional organization that is respected in its own right and acceptable to government, journalists, and the people at large as arbiters of what the “standard of journalism editorial policy” should be. This is hard to do and is not a complete thought, but with more thinking perhaps, something can be thought of in this area.
4) Disclosure of Bent of Authorship/Editorial position – Politically and Socially. By now, many of us have gotten to the point that we get that Fox and Friends is helplessly and unabashedly conservative/to the right and the Diane Rehm Show is just as much the other direction. However, labeling yourself “Fair & Balanced,” I am sorry that is just ridiculous and BS. Aside from the discussion on libel above, I think a new version of the “Fairness Doctrine” needs to be created. Namely, there ought to be clear-cut disclosure of who you are as journalists. For instance if nearly every one of your leading reporters in prime time or on your highest rated shows is a Democrat, a member of the Green Party or, otherwise politically left in the political spectrum, saying you represent the “center of America” or the “mainstream” ought to questioned and more importantly it ought to be disclosed the true bias that is present. It is often taken as sacrosanct that reporters are a supposedly neutral observer, which is not true. We all have our biases; journalists are no exceptions. Moreover, I just do not see Rachel Maddow or Sean Hannity (or their type) being able to ever strip their latent biases to give true neutral or balanced reporting. Most get this, but when organizations play in the public square or public airwaves, and try to call themselves in the mainstream of our culture, we need to know the facts and they need to report that to us as much as what they would like to report other things.
5) Independent “Journalist Association” with a Model Code of Ethics. The final suggestion is that Journalists step it up a notch professionally. What credentialing agency says that you have the character and public trust to serve as a “voice of the people”? The answer is none. If you are a lawyer, you have the state and American bar associations, and you are licensed as an officer of the court. Similarly, if you are an engineer you have a discipline specific professional association and you are licensed to practice by the state. Several other professions (doctors, architects, etc.) similarly have such credentialing, association and licensing requirements. You are policed by these organizations that have codes of ethics that go beyond what the law requires. They have specific duties as defined by law that requires a duty to care regardless of payment or other consideration. They can be held as criminally negligent as individuals, be found to have executed malpractice and pay substantial fines. In the case of architects, doctors and engineers, you can even be charged with murder for the death of another, if you fail to meet your professional charge. These professions are not unionized and don’t have collective bargaining, and they are typically exempt employees that serve as commissioned for a purpose not to just provide labor for a repetitive series of tasks or craft action. In describing all this, I believe journalism needs to be likewise. If we are going to have a field that supposedly holds the public trust to ask the hard questions, reveal the dark dirty corners of government as our trusted investigators, the power to shape our public dialogue and steer the agenda for our politics, shouldn’t we know that there is a vetting, control and licensing action involved? I say yes to make it a true profession in the classic sense. After all, with the privilege of being the corporate mode that our individual right to the freedom of the press, we ought to ensure the responsibility is placed in the right hands.
Again, these are ideas, they might not be good, they have pros and cons, but they are stabs at the problem. Now in fairness, is journalistic overzealousness, lapses, or abuse of the first amendment the most important problem of the day? No, but it is one that continues to shape all others. For that reason, I think we need to figure this out and make the “fourth estate” as effective as we concern ourselves about the other three branches of government.
Yours,
Erik
