By James McCarthy
Monday, June 29, 2020
Two recent pieces in Vox
and the New
York Times say outright what many of us have long understood is an
implicit belief among our elite media: that the media are motivated — and should
be motivated — by ideology, not objectivity.
Of course, the ethics guidelines and mission statements
of leading outlets have yet to acknowledge this reality, and many still read
like paeans to the old gods.
“Our fundamental purpose,” the New York Times
cautions its reporters, “is to protect the impartiality and neutrality [of our]
reporting.” The Washington Post insists on strict “fairness” and that it
“shall not be the ally of any special interest.” We are “unbiased, impartial,
and balanced,” declares the Associated Press. “Non-ideological objectivity” is
what the Los Angeles Times assures readers it maintains. “Professional
impartiality . . . without our opinions,” is the standard declared by National
Public Radio.
But if you look at what journalists actually say about
each other and their racket behind closed doors, at the champagne-soaked galas
where they hand each other prizes, you’re hard-pressed to find an
acknowledgment that impartiality or balance are even virtues at all.
The most insider-y of these onanistic lovefests is the
annual Mirror Awards, hosted by the prestigious Newhouse School of Public
Communications and focused on reporters who cover the journalism industry
itself.
One of this year’s nominees for “Best Story on the Future
of Journalism,” the Pacific Standard’s Brent Cunningham, perhaps
captures the new media zeitgeist most starkly in an
article spotlighting reporters who hold the “belief that journalism’s
highest calling [is] not some feckless notion of ‘objectivity,’ but rather to .
. . expose the many ways the powerful exploit the powerless” and “f*** ’em . .
. with the facts.” Indeed.
Reporter Jon Marcus was nominated for a piece
in Harvard’s Nieman Reports about reporters who withhold certain facts —
say, the name of a mass shooter — in a move that’s come to be called “strategic
silence.” While Marcus says it’s a “fraught and complex debate” that “media
organizations are struggling with,” he rehearses an Olympian leap of logic from
a left-wing activist at Media Matters, who argues that reporters should apply
this strategic silence to the leader of the free world, too: The idea is that
they should refrain from reporting statements by President Trump that they
determine are not “inherently newsworthy” or that they classify as “misinformation.”
Say what you will about the man — he probably shouldn’t be covered like a
gunman.
Forget about laying out the facts, or airing competing
viewpoints, or writing “the first draft of history.” Americans are far too
thickheaded for that. Marcus cites another sage who observes that “assuming
media literacy . . . may be optimistic.” Yet another one of his sources bemoans
journalists who assume that if you merely “throw facts at someone . . . that’s
going to change their minds.”
The other nominees for the 2020 Mirrors (19 in all,
across six categories) hardly need the encouragement to selectively slant their
reportage. The list includes a host of liberal media darlings singing straight
from the progressive hymnbook. In the eyes of the Newhouse School, apparently
no conservative writers came up with any worthy media criticism in the last
year.
Elsewhere The New Yorker’s Jane Mayer, a writer
whose leftism is more knee-jerk than a can-can dancer’s, was nominated for an
essay called “Trump TV,” which explains that, gee whiz, Fox News tends to
support the president. Move over, Bob Woodward.
The Mayer love gets meta, too. Nominated for “Best
Profile” is a piece by Molly Langmuir that appeared in the glossy magazine Elle,
titled “What’s Next for New Yorker Reporter Jane Mayer?” Here is what
the awards committee regards as an exemplar of “hold[ing] a mirror to their own
industry for the public’s benefit”: “In person, Mayer, who is petite with brown
shoulder-length hair she usually wears down, the tips slightly flipped up,
displays a confidence that has no visible fault lines. She also has a tendency
toward self-deprecation. And while her mind often seems to whir with seamless
elegance, this appears to fuel in her not impatience but curiosity.”
And here’s a detail that didn’t make it in alongside the
flipped tips: Mayer was recently excoriated by critics across the ideological
spectrum for a baseless and uncorroborated hit piece she co-wrote, the central
claims of which were later disavowed
by “several dozen” sources contacted by the New York Times.
In an Orwellian flourish, Langmuir explains that to Mayer,
the “furor from both the left and right” over the piece was a consequence of
her and co-author Ronan Farrow’s own “attempts at carefulness.” Mayer told
Langmuir that she had focused on the “‘accountability portion, trying to be
fair,’” you see. Plus, Mayer’s certainty on the unsubstantiated accusation she did
get into print was “informed by [another] incident Mayer learned about, the one
she didn’t get into print.” Got that? The reporting rejected by every other
mainstream outlet except The New Yorker was backed up by reporting
rejected by every mainstream outlet — including The New Yorker.
If Mayer was at all chastened by the denunciation of her
work by her peers, it’s hard to tell. In her most recent piece, “Ivanka Trump
and Charles Koch Fuel a Cancel-Culture Clash at Wichita State,” she returned to
one of her pet obsessions. Riffing on original reporting in the Wichita
Eagle, Mayer deceptively claimed that Koch Industries “threatened to
withdraw its financial support for the university” after Ivanka Trump was
disinvited from giving a commencement speech. But the
source article makes clear that neither Koch Industries nor Charles Koch
threatened any such thing. A company spokesperson said explicitly that the
company was not pulling funding and in fact stressed its commitment to
“academic freedom.”
Maybe Elle ought to hold off on the puff profiles,
and Mirror on the awards, until Mayer can master faithfully representing all
the facts she finds reported in regional newspapers?
And that isn’t even the biggest coffee-spitter Mirror
Awards nominee. That honor would go to David Zurawik of the Baltimore Sun,
saluted for his opinion piece applauding MSNBC host and serial prevaricator
Brian Williams. “At this moment when journalism and a free flow of reliable information
are under continual attack from the Trump administration and its many media
allies,” Zurawik proclaimed, “our democracy is made stronger by having Williams
. . . at the end of each weeknight to offer perspective on the political and
cultural warfare” in our “nation’s civic life.”
But that’s tame stuff compared to the outright agitprop
of the nomination for a multipart series jointly published by the Columbia
Journalism Review and The Nation, “The
Media Are Complacent While the World Burns,” which argued that the press
doesn’t spend enough time talking about climate change. Right, and the New
York Post ought to devote more ink to a plucky ballclub from the South
Bronx called the Yankees. A
recent report found that in 2019 the top five U.S. newspapers combined ran
between 400 and 800 articles per month that mentioned climate issues.
The top seven TV news outlets (ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, NBC, PBS)
combined covered climate issues between 200 and 400 times a month.
For the authors of that series, Mark Hertsgaard and Kyle
Pope, the sheer volume of this reporting isn’t good enough if it doesn’t send
readers to the ramparts. “Instead of sleepwalking us toward disaster,” they
insist, “the US news media need to remember their Paul Revere responsibilities
— to awaken, inform, and rouse the people to action.”
Let me suggest a different historical analog for
Hertsgaard and Pope. It was a former newspaper editor, Vladimir Lenin, who once
wrote, “A newspaper is what we most of all need . . . [in] the pressing task of
the moment. . . . Never has the need been felt so acutely as today for
reinforcing dispersed agitation . . . that can only be conducted with the aid
of a periodical press. . . . A newspaper is not only a collective propagandist
and a collective agitator, it is also a collective organizer.” That’s why, to
turn the sleepwalkers into the fully woke, Lenin created the infamous
Department of Agitation and Propaganda, or “agitprop” for short.
For all that they say the quiet parts out loud, most journalists
still want to have it both ways. They want the satisfaction of slanting
coverage to suit their ideological commitments but without giving up the
authoritative veneer of neutral objectivity. This duplicity helps explain why
surveys from leading media groups like Pew Research show a fast-growing
majority of Americans no longer trust the news.
The Mirror Awards, at least, seem to have sensed which
way the winds are blowing and are sailing in that direction. They’ve moved away
from their promise that the prizes should “recognize reliable reporters who
criticize the media and put their own views aside [to] be transparent and
objective” and toward the consensus that the problem is “the media’s reliance
on objectivity and what some see as false equivalency,” as Newhouse professor
Joel Kaplan puts it.
Objectivity is for suckers. A reporter’s own subjective
assessment is what counts, and the public is depending on the media to tell
them what to think and how to vote.
Fine. But treat readers like grownups. Polemic
masquerading as unbiased reporting demeans everyone involved, making liars out
of the press and treating the public like idiots. So why not end every article
with a shirttail stating plainly the reporter’s point of view? The author of
this piece is a committed progressive and would like [insert desired political
result] to come from the issues raised here.
The Newhouse School could even give the first New York Times or Washington Post reporter to adopt the practice an award for bravery.
No comments:
Post a Comment