3 (Other) Reasons Why Journalism is Broken


It's a neck-to-neck race to the bottom for journalism.

Pundits spend a lot of time lamenting how the Internet has undermined journalism.  There’s an argument for that.  But there’s a better argument that the web has revealed some long-time industry flaws that have slowly been eroding the public’s faith in journalism for many years.

Last week, a Gallup poll showed that 57 percent of Americas no longer trust  the media to fairly and accurately report the news.  This is an all-time high.  The reason most people give for this distrust is a sense that the media gives deferential treatment to one ideology or another.

I’d argue that most Americans are wrong about this (with the enormous exceptions of FOX-News and MSNBC).  What the public is identifying as biased reporting is really flawed reporting.

The distrust, I believe, are rooted in three primary flaws, which are outlined below.

1. Too much balance, not enough truth

Most professional news outlets vie for a balanced approach to news – but that balance has undermined “truth.”  Why?  Because times have changed and the sources that journalists rely on for information no longer always tell the truth.  These sources include politicians, bureaucrats, clergy, business executives and industry experts.

Over the years, sources have figured out the underlying fundamentals about the way journalism works.  One of these is balance.  Balance sounds like a sound goal for reporting, except that sources now understand that a journalist is obligated to report “both” sides of story – no matter how ridiculous one side might be.  In fact, there might only be one side to a story – or even many.

But journalists still report one side and then need another side to balance the story.  The more outrageous the other side – the more likely they’ll be included.  So sources have learn to manipulate the media and will sometimes resort to innuendo, propaganda, and, in some cases, outright fabrications.

This is how the news cycle gets clogged up with news that isn’t true.  For example, reports that President Obama was born in Kenya and not an American citizen, that the health care reform bill included provisions for elderly death panels, or that Muslim radicals were building a mosque on Ground Zero.  None of those stories are true, but in the name of balance – they were reported that way.

Balance no longer works and the media’s obsession with it needs to stop.  When the media report fabrications – instead of the actual facts – they lose public trust.

2. Too much ME, not enough YOU

Unfortunately, my favorite show on NPR (OnPoint Radio) is guilty of this behavior.  I’m talking about the practice of journalists interviewing other journalists as experts and witnesses to news events.

How many times have we listened to reporters from the New York Times or Wall Street Journal openly opine about the stories they are working on?  How many news shows center their broadcasts on the thoughts and opinions about news events relying solely on other journalists as the sources of information?

This practice has eroded the public’s faith in journalism for two main reasons.  First, it elevates journalists from the background – from being observers and recorders of a news events – into active participants as pundits and professional witnesses.  Rather than allowing the real participants and experts to put news into perspective and into context, journalists are doing this themselves.

Think back to the violent protests after the Iranian election.  Western journalists, sequestered in a Tehran hotel, provided commentary about the events to their peers in the United States through scores of interviews.  Most of them getting second-hand information or simply watching events unfold by looking out their hotel window.

Second, the news media spend inordinate amounts of time proclaiming that it is unbiased and impartial and then proves itself wrong again and again by having their journalists argue their strongly held political opinions on news shows.  And in these days of tight budgets and smaller staffs, many “news reporters” also write opinion columns and op-eds.

Is it any wonder the public thinks journalists are biased?

3. Obsessed with the sugar coating

Contrary to what you read in the news, politics is not a horse race.  Yet that’s how it is covered.  Issues and policy get short-shift compared to who is winning in the latest polls, who has raised the most money, and who has made the latest blunder or misstatement.  No bill or legislation is covered anymore without a deep discussion on which side gets points for it.

Think back to the health care reform bill.  Every day the public was fed a steady diet of who was on top.  Would the bill pass?  Did the Republicans score points today?  Or did the Democrats?

Actual substance of the bill was overshadowed by an obsessive need to record winners and losers.

This type of coverage doesn’t benefit the public and, even worse for the media, puts them in the position of scorekeepers rather than as journalists.

What do you think?  How broken is journalism and what do you think can be done to fix it?

Links:

The Age of Post-Modern Journalism

Politico story: “Distrust in Media Hits All Time High”

Balance is Unnecessary for Good Journalism

Punditry Has Ruined Journalism

Photo by Palolo Camera (via Flickr)

Bookmark and Share

5 Responses to “3 (Other) Reasons Why Journalism is Broken”

  1. Heck, this is dead-on. Nothing really to ad because I agree with everything!

  2. Thank you.

  3. Couldn’t agree more with you about how the public’s ability to fact-check a given story via the Internet has contributed greatly to the (deserved) erosion of Public Confidence in Media.
    However, I couldn’t Disagree more strenuously with your assertion that (a majority of) newspaper and/or TV journalists are painfully seeking to cover both sides of any given story, striving for balanced reporting, only to be twisted up and rendered handcuffed by an out-of-control virulent “PC” atmosphere. With all due respect, it is a ludicrous notion.
    Now, to fair, we don’t have cable or TV – we mostly read but actively cull through broadcasts from Russia Today to The Young Turks to The Times. I’m 53 and my wife is 35,( which adds a neat flavor and unique perspective to our discussions.)
    Please read the Harvard Study about Media Bias (towards Democrats/Liberals) as shown in the 2009 Election cycle…oh, and Fox News? They were, in fact, more balanced. surprise!

    “The Media isn’t even pretending to be unbiased anymore”

  4. Hi Dr. Wolff:
    I hardly think a Harvard study from 2007 that analyzed the 2008 election cycle and found a bias toward Democrats in the coverage is evidence that the media is liberally slanted or that FOX-News is balanced – which it most definitely is not.

    http://www.deadfishwrapper.com/harvard_study_shows_media_bias_favors_democrats

    But thanks for contributing your perspective.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. ¿Por qué el periodismo no está funcionando? — La oficina de Luis Alejandro Ordóñez - October 22, 2010

    [...] 3 Other Reasons Why Journalism is Broken « HighTalk. 22 de octubre de 2010 [...]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 6,467 other followers

%d bloggers like this: