That’s Entertainment? Or Is It News? The Media Is Walking A Fine Line - Amd May Be Falling Off
The public discourse is way too shrill. Like folks in the movie “Network,” people are screaming out their windows to a churning world, “We’re mad as hell and we’re not gonna take it anymore.”
They’re screaming not just at the politicians but at us, the news media.
What’s gone wrong with public dialogue, the give-and-take so crucial to our democracy? Have the media forsaken policy for personality, civility for sensation? Or do the media simply reflect the harsher culture of today? Is there no room in the free-for-all communications revolution for credible information and civil discourse?
“Technology has shattered the priesthood,” says media analyst Ellen Hume, a senior fellow at the Annenberg Washington Program, which is devoted to communication studies. Journalists no longer hold all and give all information. With on-line newspapers, C-Span, Internet, e-mail, CNN and some 64 cable channels, everyone can get up-to-date information. Time and geography are being erased. There’s no more scoop. But does that mean that everyone is a journalist? Or that soon we’ll have only customized news and no common source for discovering what’s verifiable and significant in the day’s events?
Those of us who work for traditional news organizations, who pride ourselves on verifying sources, on digging out the facts on both sides, on separating news from opinion, are as frustrated as the critics.
Admittedly, even the best reporters see things through the lens of their own life experiences. But they work hard to keep their personal biases out of their news stories. And within the constraints of time and space, they are required to discover and report all sides of a controversy. They try to stay at arm’s length with party politics, elected officials and other individuals or groups they’re likely to cover.
The GOP’s “Contract With America” provides a good illustration of the difference in the way reporters and editorial writers approach an important political issue. Our reporters, in Washington and here in Atlanta, wrote stories containing factual accounts of the proposed reforms. They conducted interviews with political leaders on how the reforms would work, the pros and cons of them, and how they might affect our state. They researched and gathered data on what the reforms might save or cost taxpayers.
The Atlanta Journal’s editorial board decided to run a series of editorial opinions on the reforms. Each member took a couple of sections of the contract to study and research further. We analyzed and discussed the reforms, often telephoning senators and representatives or their staffs to learn more details. Then we agreed to write a series of editorials giving readers our opinions about which reforms we support, which we oppose, and how we think some of them could be improved.
Despite all these careful guidelines, even the daily print media don’t come to this debate with clean hands. Respected newspapers and network organizations are being influenced by tabloid-mania, brushing aside longheld ethical standards in the scramble for readers and viewers. Who can the people trust when The New York Times quotes The National Enquirer, or when CBS anchorwoman Connie Chung violates her own recorded assurance of an off-the-record confidence?
Nevertheless, traditional journalists are tempted to scream back - to blame the public’s growing disrespect mostly on the attack journalism of talk radio and the “infotainment” of TV newsmagazines, both of which blur the lines between news and entertainment. Some talk-show hosts, including Atlanta’s Neal Boortz, bill themselves as entertainers, not news people. The danger is that Americans who listen to their spin on serious issues will lose sight of the truth when it comes to making political judgments.
Conrad Fink, a University of Georgia journalism professor and author of “Media Ethics,” says ethics haven’t received the same attention from the electronic media as from the print media. He believes that’s because radio and television have been restricted historically by licensing requirements and consumed more recently by ratings. In the midst of the current information revolution, he says, there’s actually “more `better’ journalism than at any previous time.” While the 30-minute newscast may be “an inch deep and a mile wide,” he points out that CNN alone provides more access to better news than the public has ever had.
It’s credibility and relevance that responsible journalists must recover, media analyst Hume says. And while news technology has changed, the definition of news hasn’t. Hume defines it as “verified information that is relevant to public life.” Whether it’s health-care reform or international trade, serious people want serious information from a source they can trust. And they want it in language they can understand and connect to their daily lives.
For democracy and the free press - democracy’s essential watchdog - to survive the information revolution, there are new challenges to be met.
First, we need to clarify for the public the difference between news and entertainment.
Second, mainstream journalists need to be more transparent. Hume suggests news organizations go so far as to invite the public into the newsrooms from time to time to see who we are and how we operate.
And finally, almost everyone agrees that the media focus too heavily on what doesn’t work instead of what does. We must cover solutions as well as problems.
Recently, I was invited to be on “CNN & Company” to discuss the distinction between talk radio and mainstream news and opinion. Michael Savage, host of “The Savage Nation,” a San Francisco radio talk show, claimed most journalism schools are “leftist propaganda institutions.” He said he finds the truth by listening to his callers.
Talk-show host Rush Limbaugh also speaks the “truth” as his followers see it. For example, regardless of conflicting views between loggers and environmentalists, scientists uniformly agree the spotted owl population in the ancient Northwest forest is dwindling. But Limbaugh recently told his listeners that the liberal environmentalists are wrong and that he has discovered the forests are actually “teeming with spotted owl.”
No matter how easy the talk shows make it seem, the truth doesn’t just surface naturally from heated discussions. It takes researching, interviewing experts, and reading or listening to opinions across a wide spectrum. That kind of hard work is what being a reporter is all about.
Interactive news is making as many waves for the media as for the public, and it will take a while to calm the turbulent new waters. All I can say in the meantime is - Yes, Virginia, there is a code of ethics in journalism. It lives and it always will, at least until people cease to care about the truth.
MEMO: Martha Ezzard is a member of the editorial board of The Atlanta Journal.